GotBass

Spotted this on the road and track magazine site today. Have not seen this mentioned anywhere so sorry if it is a repost.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6591

GTR vs Z06 vs 911 turbo

All three hit 0-60 in 3.4 sec.

But the real suprise... On a 2.74 mile roadcourse, the GTR beat both by over 5 seconds. 2:02.1 for the 911, 2:02.2 for the vette, to 1:56.9 for the GTR.

All I can say is that I'm shocked.

TopGear8

iTrader: (3)

5 second? wow that's pretty damn good.

playdoh43

yeah repost
https://www.rx8club.com/general-automotive-49/gt-r-5th-gear-car-magazine-video-review-shootout-138925/

playdoh43

despite its test weight of 3960 lb

I hope this shows some of more stubborn people here that weight isnt everything when it comes to handling. Lighter dosn't always mean better, the GT-R certainly didnt beat the other two cars in the straight.

YaXMaNGTO

mysql

lighter is almost always better.

in this shootout, more weight wasn't enough to make the GT-R lose though.

If you had two GT-Rs, one that was 1000 lbs less than the other, which do you think would win?

TopGear8

iTrader: (3)

^The one that weighed 1000 lbs less!


Am i right? Am i right?!?

playdoh43

If every thing else are equal then of course the lighter car would win. This argument does nothing in comparing the importance of weight against any other factor.

its like saying, if everything else are equal 1 GT-R has 100 more HP which car would win? Or if everything else is equal if 1 GT-R is running stickier tire which car would win?

Sorry but the only thing I can agree with you on is that lighter is alway better if weight is the only factor thats different.

mysql

exactly. I don't think anyone ever said weight makes a car impossible to drive around well. Usually cars that weigh as much as a boat don't tend to handle well as true performance is not the goal. Slapping on a big engine in a heavy car and you have an uphill battle if you want it to perform like an Elise.

In this situation I think Nissan engineered a better car, and it is working in their favor. $80k makes it a bargain (assuming you can get it for msrp) as it's difficult to buy a new standard 911 with decent options for that amount of money.

imput1234

iTrader: (6)

GT-R has pawned everything. But on the review (forgot which mag had M3, R8, GTR) the gtr pawned, but the drivers preferred the M3

playdoh43

well all im saying is that, weight is important, but theres plenty of other things that are important too. theres no need to be so stuck on the weight of cars, you can say usually cars that wiegh as much as a boat dont tend to handle well, and I can say usually cars that weighs very little dosnt necessarily handle well either, can a Yaris, Yugo, Echo, Versa, xA, Cube outhandle a M3? There are plenty of very light cars that handles like crap too.

All im saying is, weight is important but tons of other things are important too. Theres no need to put down a car because its not light as the RX8 (such as the 135i) based on a curb weight. Wait for the official reviews and test drive your self. Im not directing this at you MySQL, just in general at how some people just jump to conclusion about new cars that has very little information available and they never drove.

Lithium Lotus

I'm also willing to bet that the GTR is much easier to drive then the Z06 and 911 due to it being AWD and automatic.

2tone

iTrader: (3)

no duh. i too would much rather be sitting in a bmw than a nissan. props for the gtr, but it's still a nissan. fit and finish on a 911 or m3 ... no comparison.

Ike

I'd like to see a link to this review... The one direct comparo I saw with the new M3, the GT-R was widely prefered by everyone that drove the car, which included professional race car drivers from Europe. The GT-R also trounced it on the track and real world 0-100 by a wide margin. In addition they had a 911 GT3 in the test and the GT-R was faster than it in all categories and they said they called it a draw between the GT3 and GT-R saying each could do certain things better than the other. The M3 wasn't even in the same ballpark. I don't give it a **** if it's "still a Nissan", I'll take the Nissan over the M3 every day of the week.

xsnipersgox

i don't know.. nissan > bmw for me. the heritage of bmw is in its class, for me , nissan's heritage is in it's passion for performance.

oh, the GTR is just the beginning of the crazy move to drive by wire on everything, i was talking to my professor that was doing some work with braking control and teaches dynamics system control.. and lets just say i am amazed by the ability that the cars are going into (think jet plane), and disappointed that it would be harder to have fun (such as drifting or actually shifting)

playdoh43

link?

climacus

The GTR is turning these crazy times not because Nissan have refuted the law of inertia. It's faster because all 500hp are being deployed to the ground through the trick AWD system, something their RWD competitors cannot do. It goes faster than the 997 turbo because the front engine config is more stable and easier to drive. It'd be nice if they started with a new chassis that's a couple hundred lb lighter, but then it'd be much more expensive.

I hope Honda and BMW are taking notes. Nissan just upstaged the 911 turbo for half the price. Real performance, not carbon-fiber roofed boats for yuppies.

playdoh43

the 911 turbo is also AWD,

I think the GT-R's advantage comes from one of the most advanced AWD system out there with computer controlled torque split as well as a balanced chasis and lotus tuned suspension.

professional drivers on BMI during the episode with M3 and RS4 said that weight is more or less not a big issue for them, but rather how predictable and linear the car feels as it approaches the limit. this just happens to be the biggest complaint they and many others have toward the C6 corvette chasis.

xsnipersgox

Shift_Passion =D...* drool*

climacus

That was my point, sorry if I wasn't being clear. The GTR is faster than the 997 turbo because it is harder to drive a rear-engined car at the ragged edge. It'll take another crisis at Porsche before the day of reckoning comes for the 911 family. Rear-engine config is a dead-end from a handling perspective, that's for sure.

YaXMaNGTO

Ah? No.

Ike

For one, we're not talking about some idiot out driving these cars, it's professionals that aren't going to have any issues pushing a rear engine configuration to its limits.

You saying "Rear-engine config is a dead-end from a handling perspective, that's for sure" is one of the dumber things I've seen on this forum. The GT3 is one of the best handling and best drivers cars in the world. In addition, 911's are the most prolific race cars on the planet. Something tells me that wouldn't be the case if a rear engine car was really a "dead-end from a handling perspective".

dynamho

u brand ho?

dynamho

From a handling perspective? I don't think so.
From a stability pespective? Perhaps, but Porsche is admired precisely for sticking with this engine configuration through the years and making it work with brute engineering. Porsche has been polishing that same fundamental configuration and for so many years.

climacus

Porsche have wanted to move away from the rear-engine configuration since the early '70s. The 914/924/944 were suppose to gradually move upscale and replace the 911 line. But the 911 is such a powerful marquee and is so inextricably linked to the mystique of owning a Porsche, it's hard for them to walk away from the profit. The fact that every single clean sheet design they've done in the last 35 years is either front or mid-engine speaks volume about what they really believe is the optimal layout.