Stock ZR1 Laps Nürburgring in 7:26.4

I think where I work is pretty irrelevant.Unless you disagree with the Data, and it's not my data anyways. So i guess there isn't much point in me talking about someone else's test results anymore ;-)

 

Adam, I didn't mean it in a Negative Way, your posts have been enlightening if anything.

 

Ok, so we took the GTR video and the ZR1 video... overlayed them, sync'd them and, well... you be the judge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ-CNFpPCnk

 

The video adds credence to the idea that the GTR was "not stock powered". At the straight at the end, the ZR1 gets up to 175-180 and just sits there, despite the fact that we know the car is capable of >200mph, and it was a straight road, so it wasn't a traction issue. During this time, the GT-R gains a lot of time.

Also, a few times during the video the ZR1 driver (Mero) screws up and backs off the gas and throws his hands up in the air.

I think the ZR1 has a lot left in it, and it's inexplicable how the GTR would be as fast or faster in the high speed straights, when we know that the ZR1 is hugely faster than the GTR on the top end.

But since we've been educated on the fact that car companies never give ringers to testers, the explanation is simple - someone imported some of that bad gas from Cali and used it in the ZR1

 

Either the GT-R was a ringer, or the ZR1 was towing a trailer.

 

You guys must have missed the fact that the ZR1 was tested with a strong headwind. There is your explanation.

 

Don't buy it as the only explanation. When driving in a circle you generally get as much headwind as tailwind And that would have to be one HELL of a headwind to drop 25mph from the top end. Was it a hurricane?

 

That long straight was into a head wind and it's all up hill. A friend of mine here at work has raced around that track and knows it well. I said the same thing when he pointed out it is a long uphill and was into the wind...

 

I thought this was very odd as well. That is a loooooong straight. I've ridden in stock Z06 vettes that will continue to pull to VMAX. This is a very puzzling part of the video...

Only explanation is that that was the max speed that the kink to the left could be sustained at... If the driver crept up to 190 but had to get off or hit the brakes for that left hander, where almost immediately he drops to 145mph would that loose too much time?

 

Isn't that the truth.

 

better than the vette or the GT-R...
Check it out!

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/BMW-M3-GTR_169615.htm

 

As I saw it the ZR1 was way ahead of the GTR at aproximatly the same time shown in minutes/seconds. Right up to the last straight sequence where the GTR "fast forwarded".
Does the GTR have a different effect on time than the ZR1 ? After all, its all relative.
Or perhaps bad gas in the ZR1"s clock ?

 

Can we just forget about the Nissan for a moment here and celebrate the incredible feat GM has achieved with a factory modified Corvette? Thank you~


sheesh~ what's up with all the Nissan hate around internet forums, it's almost as if people still can't believe a lowly Japanese GT car can be so fast. Deal with it.

 

I've long suspected that the GTR has a GPS enabled "overboost" mode, or more likely, was an overboost ringer for the Ring.

 

I agree the Corvette is amazing, especially for the $.
Re: Nissan hate, I think it is more a reaction to being BS'd by Nissan than anything else. The GT-R simply can't be as fast as claimed with the specs as claimed. There are some pretty smart guys on FChat for example, present them with a line of crap like Nissan has and they will call you on it.

 

Well, common sense states that a 3900lb AWD car with a turbo V6 and full leather interior shouldn't be able to run the ring under 8:00 let alone 7:30. Obviously the GT-R can sprint under 8:00 so the spec can't be right. Then again the R34 never ONLY had 280hp either but I wouldn't necessarily call that a lie. I have a sneaking suspeicion that the new Japanese Gentleman agreement horsepower will be set at 499hp or 500hp. (to be achieved by the GT-R V-spec, next NSX and Lexus LF-A)

 

The previous sub 8 minutes Nissan GTR R33 with 280hp were later discounted by the magazines and pronounced "ringer" because they were never able to get any where near Nissan's advertised time, even when they used the same driver. A time thats off by 10 or so seconds is understandable but Nissan's claim was off by 30 or more seconds. This seems to be the same with the new Nissan GTR R35

 

Looking at power and weight alone is a poor judge of track performance. Any Porsche owner will tell you that, the 997 C2S has simply destroyed much more powerful cars of similar weight. A more telling fact is that Horst Von Saurma drove both a Corvette C6 Z06 with 505hp to a nearly identical time to a M3 CSL he drove as well. Same driver same track, cars weigh close to the same, and the M3 CSL makes a paltry 360hp (145hp less!) and still managed a 7:50. The 997 GT3 RS post stunning times as well....faster than cars with hundreds more HP.

I still fail to understand the blind skepticism of Nissan's ability to achieve a goal. They're the only manufacturer to my knowledge that named a trim level "Spec Nur" in honor of the ring. Nissan has cared about ring times since before it was cool, an their stated goal with the GT-R was to handily beat the 911 Turbo at the ring, and they spent years working and tweaking on that very thing. So no I have reason to think the video was fake, they've spent years focused on a goal, they achieved it, they have a great car now, and Next year Porsche will make an even better car, ;-)

 

Nissan claim to have 10% driveline loss. Even mid engined RWD cars don't achieve this. Somebody else would've with "better" ball bearings, and "better" allignment. Most rational people call bullocks here.

A M3 CSL wears semi-slicks. The Z06 wears high milage run flat tires. There is a world of difference there, and like comparing apples to a porterhouse steak. You should know better. The 996 GT3 RS also adorned semi-slicks, and was still faster then the M3 CSL.... since it is a better platform, with even less weight, and better chassis/weight bias dynamics.

Those rediculous (in a good way) tuning houses in Japan that run for the all out "tuner" fast lap... where often the R34 GTR is the fastest car over 1 lap ( and these cars still tip the scales 400 lbs less then the GTR does) . Turns out that they can only run 2 fast laps before the times start falling; in dramatic fashion. Tires can overcome weight, but only temporarily. We are talking about semi-slick tires with a very low treadwear rating...

It is a VERY large number of people that have not only massive skepticism over the GTR, but over the automotive press, and their ability to do nothing more then swoon over anything, and everything that Nissan claim. The sheer number of pages devoted to how the R35 GT-R is the best thing since .... well, since the invention of the wheel is really quite sickening. It is no wonder that many of these magazines are adorned with Nissan advertisements lately... So far, the only reasonable review I've seen or read was from Jason Plato.

There are so many media outlets now, where if you don't sucker up to such a brand, chances of you getting an early press car next time.... or any press car diminish.

You guys (in a general sense) should be skeptical; particularly with Nissan's history of lying relating NS lap times. But again.... swooning over the brand, and the car seems to have clouded reasonable judgment, ability to reason, and ultimately, credibility.

As to your previous mentions of C+D not knowing how to drive the R35 properly; then why have all previous attempts been "up to par" ?

Additionally, further research into Steve Millen has reduced his reputation, and credibility further in my mind as much more than a grandiose shoutbox for Nissan.

Seriously
How can you guys not put 1+1+1+1 does not equal 3.... either the car has a lot more then 480 hp (read 550+) (and nissan has clever dyno engine tuning with it's built in GPS) ~~ how else would the car hit nearly 180 mph down the back straight of the Nurburgring? Even with a tailwind.

Either the car has much less mass, or it is running an extreme tire compound. Not the Run Flats...

Either it can do 111 mph trap speed, or it can do 124 mph trap speed, which is it?

 

I've already far exceeded my desire to continue this debate, but in the spirit of a god natured debate, I'll restate your points as I understand them (or they come across to me), and then let you understand why I do or do not agree with your point.

You Say They Say: Nissan claims a 10% Loss
You say: Impossible.

I say:
10% is difficult but not impossible (this number I believe is pretty achievable in some mass produced applications like FWD low torque economy cars and motorcycles)
I have not Seen Nissan make this claim, a link would be helpful.

The Media says: 420-435 Wheel HP (motor Trend)
Owners Say: 420-435 Wheel HP (GTRBlog.com)

480Crankhp * 0.75(25% Loss) = 360 Wheel HP
480Crankhp * 0.80(20% Loss) = 384 Wheel HP
480Crankhp * 0.85(15% Loss) = 408 Wheel HP
480Crankhp * 0.90(10% Loss) = 432 Wheel HP
480Crankhp * 0.95(5% Loss) = 456 Wheel HP

So far the Data supports Nissan's claim of 10% loss.... Though it is possible that loss is higher and the motor cranks out more power to achieve the same Wheel HP, but since Customer and Press GT-Rs are coming in with the same dyno figures, the point is moot.

you're saying my point is invalid because of tire choice

I am saying that is up to the manufacturer in how they choose to equip the car. In point of Fact, the GT-R is also equiped stock with a vastly sticker Dunlop (and optional with premium package less sticky Bridgestone), that is a far better tire than the F1 SC tire GM uses on the Corvette. But this just reiterates the point that the GT-R doesn't need the power or weight to post good times, it's the entire package.

you say: ...tuners use sticky tires with low tread wear

I say: ....obvious point? Not sure why this is being brought up but all tuners do this,not just Nissan tuners? Heck I used to daily drive 315/30R17 BFGDrag Radials that got less than 3,000 miles of city driving on a 550 RWTorque Trans Am.

you say: The press is swooning over the GT-R

I say: They have reason to, and they will continue to do so over the next big car release... It's what they do. If Saturn released a Sky GXP-R that did a 7:25 on the Nur, the mags would swoon over it too!

You Say: Nissan is advertising in Magazines, therefore Magazine reviews of GT-R are corrupt

I Say: Manufacturers of all types advertise in Magazines, and point in Fact GM spends the most of any manufacturer on advertising ($3b/year), so by your logic you should be most skeptical of their products if that is your razor.

You say: Nissan is not credible and have faked results

I Say: That is libel, so I would have to understand your sources and the facts rather than the hearsay.

You Say: the C&D test is the only accurate bench mark and Steve Millen is not credible

I Said: Okay I will ask Steve, I did on video, and he said the C&D test was anomalous. In point of fact, C&D in their own article said that test was an anomoly as well.

You Say: Steve is on Nissan's Pay roll

I say: Steve is driving for Road and Track, not Nissan, and the competitive Rally racing he is doing right now is Actually in Ford Product, not Nissan. however, all facts being equal Steve did get a better tie for the Z06 around Buttonwillow than C&D did, so he beat their Z06 time by a little and their GT-R time by a lot. If anything this reiterates that the C&D driver was not getting as good of times as the Road and Track Driver.

you say: The car lacks the power to achieve that speed.

I Say: the GT-R has a 0.27 Drag Coefficient, and aerodynamics matters more than weight for top speed.

you are saying: The Magazine car is a ringer

I say: The Facts do not support this

the Facts say: The worst posted time (111mph) was from a magazine test. Logic would say that if Magazines were getting ringers, C&D would have a fast time. The Best Mph tested (124mph) was from a customer car (by edmunds). Additionally, a customer just dynoed the same power as Motor Trend, so this is even more facts that do not support the "ringer" case.

 

These posts are getting so damn long I have no desire to read them and join the debate lol.

 

+1, and I'm a Corvette guy.

 

Nissan Lied - No libel; journalistic integrity? People forget their history quickly... ~ note swooning

Do you know of anyone in the past that has been called out by Sport Auto when they tested the car, at least to this extent.
(sport auto said the GTR is a 7:50's car .... are rarely off by more then 7 seconds from factory tests.)

Since we are talking about aerodynamics, you might be well to know that drag coeficient is measured against total frontal area, which the GTR has A LOT of... significantly more then it's competitors.

It has been my experience that boosted cars behave better in low pressure environs than their NA bretheran; however, heat soak affects them more. 14 mph trap speed variance is very large to explain away; all while ET were predominantly similar until the most recent 12.6 ET... so even there was at least one 111 mph @ 11.x that I recall. I believe it was from Edmunds as well.

10% comes from this
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6247428/new-cars/nissan-360-day-1-things-ive-learned/index.html
Think about AWD
Think about the fact it is not only a open dif. transaxle with extremely low rotational mass due to tiny tires/ brakes/ axle/ wheel... and low mass of those bits as well. Again, you are comparing things that are out of the realm of possibility when dealing with Mr. Newton.

In addition:
Nissan's CEO recently said that the GTR's laptime was 7:38, not the 'penultimate' 7:29 recently driven.

About the tires:
NS laptime was quite certainly not the tires fitted when stock.... particularly the 7:29 lap time.
About the talk of the tuners and their fast laps
the heavier GTR showed it was very fast, while the tires hadn't degraded. However, the tires degraded rapidly, and could only produce 2 hot laps before lap times dropped, while other make cars were able to execute many more hot laps.

How many laps will a GTR be able to do before the car is slowed pathetically by tire degradation?

GM advertised more then Nissan:
They aren't trying to belittle other manufacturers, just promote their own products in the said magazines etc. ... just as Nissan will expect to be promoted with articles. I know of a couple ~smaller~ magazines who refused to re-write, or re-test a vehicle with the incentive of advertising dollars. One of the said magazines stopped carrying their advertisements altogether. That is what I'd call integrity.

Mr. Newton says: you cannot hide the weight.

 

Nurburgring
Nissan GTR: 7:29.03
Porsche GT2: 7:32.02
Ford GT: 7:42
Corvette ZO6: 7:42.99
Corvette C6: 7:59
Audi R8: 8:04


[/b]Web Rides Track[/b]
Ford GT: 42.83
Nissan GTR: 43.04
Audi R8: 44.68
Corvette C6: 46.11


Quattroporte
Ferrari 430 Scuderia: 1.15,3
Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4: 1.15,7
Porsche 997 GT2: 1.15,5
Nissan GT-R: 1.17,6


C&D The Ultimate Track Test
Viper ACR: 1:55.7
Porsche GT2: 1:59
Nissan GTR: 2:01.1
Corvette ZO6: 2:01.7

 

I say 10% drivetrain loss is impossible in an awd drive vehicle at this time.