|
|
03-20-2008, 10:06 PM | #1 | |||
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
GTR beats 911TT and Z06: from Road&Track
911 Turbo:
Points: 380.7 Lap Times: 2:02.1 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6593 Quote:
Points: 384.2 Lap Times: 2:02.2 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6592 Quote:
Points: 386.6 Lap Times: 1:56.9 http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6591 Quote:
|
|||
03-20-2008, 11:39 PM | #2 |
First Lieutenant
77
Rep 363
Posts |
apparently V-Spec, V-Spec II and Nur-Spec models will follow, more power and lighter wieght. Be interesting to see how Porsche reacts in the coming years, this battle after all really is with Porsche and Nissan, these other cars are just in the way.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-20-2008, 11:39 PM | #3 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Nice review, the accolades keep piling up. The most interesting points to me were (not in any particular order):
1. Worst gearbox rating. Hard to believe they did not nail the gearbox as well as they could have. 2. Worst ride by far. The adjustability of the suspension should have made this not the case. 3. Total dominance on steering, brakes and handling. Nice. 4. Weight as tested, 3960. This sucker is 2 full tons. I guess we have to get used to the idea that engineering can seriously "hide" mass from a handling perspective. Impressive. 5. Explanation of track times. Even the Nissan engineer said "we don't defy physics with the GT-R, we just apply it properly". However, despite this retort directly attacking the skeptics/attackers of the car, it was noted that the ATTESA system as well as the GT-R's "STICKY TIRES" contributed to its lap times. Again my suspicion is here (as it has been all along) that these tires are MPSC sticky or better. We all know how key tires are on a track and this is surely part of the magic here. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 12:03 AM | #4 |
Banned
4143
Rep 6,926
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 01:30 AM | #5 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 03-21-2008 at 02:10 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 01:38 AM | #6 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
It is amazing how the GTR beat both cars by 6 seconds, especially the 911TT. BTW, regardless of the results, it's still a Porsche. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE!
Last edited by gbb357; 03-21-2008 at 02:27 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 02:01 PM | #7 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Good. That means we are getting closer and closer to agreement; each sort of moving toward the middle ground. Because I am having more confidence and being more and more impressed with the chassis, ATTESA-ETS, VDC-R, etc.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 02:06 PM | #8 | |
Banned
832
Rep 46,029
Posts |
Quote:
OMG!!! i wish that car came with 6MT |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 04:09 PM | #9 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Just almost Swamp. I still prefer and believe that it is not under-rated. But with the 6 seconds advantage and 500lbs heavier against the 911TT, it almost seems impossible not to be.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 05:26 PM | #10 |
Captain
55
Rep 649
Posts |
just to point out the 'curb weight' is 38xx as they list. the test weight includes the driver and equipment etc..
Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3 (curb weight from various magazines) Last edited by rai; 03-21-2008 at 05:46 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 05:40 PM | #12 |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 06:13 PM | #13 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 07:45 PM | #14 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
You're right. I did'nt realize that 3960 is test weight and i forgot that the curb weight for the GTR is 3800lbs or just above it. Still, the 6 seconds over the 911TT is still mind boggling.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 07:48 PM | #15 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 09:09 PM | #16 | |
Captain
55
Rep 649
Posts |
reading is a gift, I said the M3 is about the same as the 911 turbo. I didn't say I wish it weighed 3550, I said that is what has been reported (numerous) magazines have weighed the M3 and it has been under 3600 lbs which is indeed colse to the listed weight of the 911 turbo (from this test).
BMW lists M3 3700 with driver (that's not curb weight) btw. Quote:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st+page-4.html Maybe the sedan with 19" etc weighs 36xx lbs but from several magazines R&T, C&D etc.. which are weighing the cars (list curb weight with full gas) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 09:22 PM | #17 |
Captain
55
Rep 649
Posts |
MT magazine lists the M3 sedan here as 3652 lbs (the sedan is slightly heaver than the coupe).
If the magazines are to be believed the M3 coupe is somewhere around 3600 lbs (some list less than that) which I did say is close to the listed 911 turbo 3550 lbs http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html |
Appreciate
0
|
03-21-2008, 09:51 PM | #18 |
Captain
55
Rep 649
Posts |
interesting, I have thought of getting a GTR myself but seems to hard to get one at this time, may revisit it in a year or two. But the GTR is actually 3" longer than the M3 sedan and 3" wider yet it's rear seats are (about) the same size as the much smaller 911 turbo. It seems to have 7" less rear seat headroom as the M3 coupe (from the listed measurements) and the legroom is just an inch more than the 911 turbos.
Not that I think that's what the gtr is about just it's a massive car and yet very little or no room in the rear seat may as well be a 2-seater. I think the M3 coupe while a lot different than Z06 or GTR etc. does have a big advantage with it's rear seats. I'm 6'2" and sat in the rear of the M3 coupe. didn't have a ton of room but the fact is I sat in the back so a small adult should have no problem. if there was 7" less headroom I'd have to lay down across the seat cos I would not fit a second in that. In fact the cubic feet measurements the M3 is not a lot smaller than the M5. I know it's some smaller but it's not like one of those cars where even toddlers can not fit in the back. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-22-2008, 09:34 AM | #19 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
Although, true, my statement was made in jest. Maybe, I should have said we rather than I, as I am quite confident that all of us wish the M did weigh about 3550. What you did say was: "Interesting to note the 911 turbo curb weight was 3550 which is about the same as the M3". (Of course, that was until you edited it.) The turbo is listed at 3495 on Porsche's website and the M3 at 3704 on BMW's website. What I find interesting is that Porsche can add two turbos, AWD, a sunroof, bigger brake calipers, wheels and tires and still come in lighter than the M; the disparity differs depending on the source. (Porsche and BMW may or may not manipulate their weights) On a side note, I believe that much of the 5+ second advantage to the GT-R was due to the much stickier tires. The Bridgestones used on that car have more stick than Porsche's PS2s. Last edited by devo; 03-22-2008 at 02:53 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-22-2008, 09:44 AM | #20 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Doing the old tried and true analysis of trap speeds on these cars (tested together under the same weather conditions) shows that they tend toward accurate ratings. Using the more than 50 year old (and basic) formula of trap speed divided by the constant 234, result cubed, times the tested weight gives the following: Z06 - 495 HP GT-R - 489 HP Porsche Turbo - 516 HP The Z06 loses a little based on tire slip in first and second gears - and if you've ever driven one, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The GT-R gains a bit based on a killer launch (see the acceleration graph in the R & T data panel) and killer shifts from its gearbox. The Porsche gains its advantage via the Sport Chrono package that gives you just over 500 pound feet of torque for most or all of the run, instead of its 457 ft/lb rating. In short, no harm, no foul. Everybody's being pretty straight up on the power ratings. Not surprising, given SAE (and I assume DIN) rules. Looking further at that graph from the data panel, it's clear that if you're crusing along at 80 or so and a Z06 pulls alongside, better start screwing with the radio rather than getting exhaust blown in your face if you're in either of the other cars. Likewise, if you're at a light in either of the other cars and a GT-R pulls up, better start looking for that hard-to-find jazz station until the Nissan is safely away and the folks behind you start to honk. On a related topic and based on these results, it looks as if footie was right and I was wrong in regard to Nissan hobbling the GT-R's launch control for the U.S. I am very pleased about that, and glad I didn't wager something on the outcome. Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 03-22-2008 at 09:53 AM.. Reason: Grammar |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-22-2008, 02:24 PM | #21 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
If the SC package delivers more torque over that broad of an rpm range the hp must increase in about the same ratio. Have you seen a dyno run for the SC package. Could it be that the torque is onlydelivered so low in rpm that the peak hp is not affected much?
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-22-2008, 02:39 PM | #22 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
In most races, SC is relatively moot, as the revs never dip below 4000 rpms except from the dig. Although, SC is active while tapering down between 4000-5000 rpms, it can not be activated by merely dipping below 5000. The extra boost is only available for 10 second bursts, which is far more than what is needed. The power of the turbo is so linear that you do not realize the extra torque/hp of SC. It justs feel like any time warp machine when you pin the go pedal. Last edited by devo; 03-22-2008 at 02:54 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|