I read the 0-150 times and the GTR dies fast above 100.
So this is the recent C&D Ranking of performance cars..... M3 > GT-R > Porsche GT2 > Viper ACR > Corvette Z06. C&D is utterly hopeless and useless.
Not saying the GT-R should have beaten the ACR, it's an impressive machine. But this GT-R was obviously off it's game. There have been an ocean of other tests showing the GTR is on average 3.2-3.6 0-60 and 116-118 in MPH in the QTR. This car was half a second slower to 60mph and 5mph off it's typical Qtr Mile trap speed. The more convincing fact is the GT-R has already been raced at Buttonwillow by Road an Track. Using the Z06 as the control since it is the only car used in both tests we see this. http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0508_ct_OnTrack.pdf Lap Times Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Car and Driver: 2:01.7 / 79.9 mph Road and Track: 2:02.2 /80.3 mph Nissan GT-R Car and Driver: 2:01.1 / 80.3 mph Road and Track: 1:56.9 /84.0 mph The Z06 times are nearly identical, the GT-R is 5 seconds and 4mph off. So my conclusion? Probably bad gas in the GT-R. We get 91 Octane hippy Juice in SoCal. I'm sure it affected the GT-R and the Porsche GT2. Regardless, the body of tests would show this test is the anomaly, not the norm. -Adam
PS, yes I know Buttonwillow can be run in a number of different configurations...(I've actually run this configuration myself in an e46 M3 before)...but looking at the Z06 times it would appear to be the same configuration.
thank you!!! i have been saying it for months!!! thats what happens with AWD!!!!! these cars are doomed on the big end... also, it makes me think that the press cars have a little bit of extra boost in the lower gears to help get the klller 0-60 times (for the press and hype) and then they get hot and the car retards timing and dials back boost to safe levels. Somewhat similar of a concept to MINI/BMW and Porsche overboost concept... its just a hunch
I really don't think the ZR1 is going to be able to match the performance of the acr on the track... in a straightline yes... but at the track i don't think so.... Ok... admittedly I am a viper guy... but i still dont think the vette is going to beable to corner as well... it will be just as quick if not quicker in the straights... it should shut down with the carbon brakes... but that suspension and lack of aero will hurt... plust is weighs i think 100lbs more than a z06, whic is still 200 lbs lighter than a non hardcore acr
Disagree, I think the ZR1 with another 100+ hp, carbon brakes, and some aero will overcome the added weight and turn quicker lap times then a ZO6.
So far the data tells us the C&D test was the exception. FWIW I'm in the Automotive Media Business. The Press cars are driven hard and put up wet and often represent worse than real world performance. Edmunds couldn't get a test car and had to use a customer car for their Japan test and it was far faster than what C&D observed. FWIW The idea that any manufacturer would exaggerate claims these days is off what I've observed. After the debacle with the SVT Cobra in the 1990s where Ford had to recall the car because the customer cars did not perform to factory claims, all the manufacturers have been very conservative in their test methods. There is no reason not to look at Nissan's performance claims at face value. Car and Driver stated in the review that this car was not generating normal results and appeared to be a bit of a dog. I'm inclined to believe them since they had access to the car, and had previously tested other GT-Rs. My speculation is that the car was down ~50hp from other cars looking at the Qtr mile trap speed compared to others (111 mph vs 116 mph) . A HP loss like that could be caused from a car moving onto a more conservative engine map, which could be something as simple as running 91 Octane instead of 93+. A turbo car racing in a desert environment like buttonwillow would be at a serious disadvantage to Naturally aspirated cars which are less detonation prone.... but again this is just my speculation based on the data. Only the Car and Driver testers know the conditions and their observation was this GT-R wasn't performing as well as others they've driven.
I'm wondering if 2008 / 2009 is going to be looked at years from now as the pinnacle of performance - much like people looked at 1969 and 1970 as the pinnacle of the musclecar era. The numbers cannot get much better than they are now without defying physics. Gas getting expensive...eventually this is going to be a bygone era. RMX
Maybe yes, maybe no. A Nissan engineer was asked about the amazing track times of the GT-R and how despite weight and lower HP it was beating faster cars and defying physics. He responded by saying "we do not defy physics, we just apply physics properly". There is a mountain of truth behind that statement. Massive performance gains are made by the smallest of tweaks. Despite less power the V8 F1 cars are pacing faster than the V10 cars ever did. Ferrari is already moving that direction with their next generation of vehicles. The customers who buy the GT-R, ZR-1 or pretty much any Ferrari are largely unaffected by the price of gas, so therefore products for that customer are not affected either. There will still be cars in the future that will cater to this market. Now that said, the reason Nissan can sell a GT-R at a loss, is future volume, and their plan to reuse the platform for other models. The only reason a Corvette ZR-1 can pack so much performance into such a modest price is the sheer volume of "Standard" Corvettes they sell. If it cost $100m to R&D, launch, support, and produce a line of cars, and you only sell one, then that car needs to cost $100,000,000 to just break even. Thats the key reason low volume manufacturers sell product at higher prices...they have to. Porsche sells at high price and high volume, which is why they're shockingly profitable and have the resources to buy Volkswagen. Now, all this said, if economics dictate that Nissan cannot make a Product case for other GT-R based product, and they cannot make a marketing case against it, then yes, cars like that will either massively increase in cost or be canceled. (For example the Dodge Viper is done after this current generation). The new ACR is an amazing machine and there are people that will buy it, but Chrysler has to have a business case to build it, and sadly they can't make the case for the next generation......I find that sad given the car was such an icon of company rejuvenation.
Yes Maybe As I said I am speculating as to why this GT-R was 5 seconds off a previous GT-R time at Buttonwillow. What I mentioned about fuel maps is pretty standard, and actually because of modern computers you get this flexibility. I am not familiar with the GT-R's ECM, but for the sake of discussion it could have a three sets of engine tune based on conditions. An "all systems go" map, a "some things to account for" map and a "this just sucks" map. Nissan has to presume and plan for some idiot idling his GT-R through Death Valley on 87 Octane gas. 20 years ago this test would have kept a car like the GT-R from happening, as the motor would pre-detonate causing piston damage. Today, the intake air temperature, plus engine temperature, plus knock sensor, would all say "this just sucks" and put the car on a conservative timing curve. Sapping HP, probably pulling back the boost a little too.
I would generally agree...though it may be 2010 where we peak. It takes a lot of time and money to pull off major performance gains...unless one is referring to 2/10s of a second as a 'major' performance gain. In my eyes the big dogs are all running mid 3's 0-60 and high 11's 1/4 mile. To me a major performance gain will be getting into the high 2's 0-60 and the high 10's/low 11's in the 1/4 mile. I dont see that happening except for a few examples of supercars. We're losing the Viper and I dont see the next gen vette, 430 replacement or any other production car hitting those numbers.
The closer you get to zero the more significant each tenth becomes. That said the trend I've seen is both balanced performance (total package) as well as reliability and drivability. The Super Cars of the 1960s ran in the 12s and 11s in factory tune, but they were uncivilized monsters that would beat you to death. (My neighbor has an AC Cobra replicar.... it's a beast).
Does the press refuel the cars before tests? Do they check air pressures and alignments? Do they dyno or weigh cars before testing? LS
Testing procedures vary between publications. For Example, Muscle Mustang & Fast Ford, will run a car all weekend at the drag strip, ice the intake, play with air pressure, put down VHT and then only publish their fastest time. Given that this is the same sort of stuff their audience does, this is perfectly representative. Conversely I talked to an editor at Motor Trend, and he said they throw out high and low times and average the result. They do this to show what the car will likely do in day to day driving....which again is what their readers are interested in. Additionally you have the issue of timing method. 5th wheels? Accelerometers? GPS? Lasers? Everyone uses different equipment. Dynoing a car is something the wine and cheese magazines rarely do, (and always do wrong IMOHO), and is much more common with tunning magazines that want to show before and after results. As for gas, I can tell you the press fleet might as well be rental fleet. We got a Caliber SRT4 from Dodge that was loaded up with 87 Octane and couldn't dyno anywhere near it's advertised numbers. As for my publication, we're the "Daily Show" of the press world, so my only concern is how many boobies we can get into a shot. Here is one of my productions from this summer... http://shinkaze.com/2008/10/dodge-challenger-bikini-car-wash-video/ ..We leave the serious journalism to mags.
