Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are The Japanese Poised to Dethrone the 911 AND the Z06?
194 messages, Last post on Nov 24, 2008 at 12:05 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 02, 2008 7:13 am)  Some of these magazine tests should be required to put a disclaimer at the start of the article on how much ad revenue each of the manufacturers in the test contributed.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tedebear (Apr 14, 2008 2:02 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 02, 2008 7:13 am) Similarly I said a few weeks ago, that it would be interesting to run these cars at a track like Indy, Daytona, or Talladega for 24 hours. See how many miles they can run. In that case you would be including mpg, gearing, cooling design, tire wear, and whether your design to achieve high power is really reliable. I would think in a test like this displacement would matter (less stressed, more cooling area), with a car like the Vette or Viper running the most miles. I know Saab used to tout this type of test (24 hour high-speed run) about 10 years ago in their advertising.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Apr 15, 2008 1:12 pm) Basically, what you're suggesting is drive them both until they handgrenade? And even then, which one goes first might vary based on certain conditions. So what we really have to do is buy 10 of each and then average which one blew up after how long. But who has a spare million to prove this moot point? I think the point that was being made is that NEITHER is durable enough to take that kind of punishment. Similarly to before, this really isn't the practical kind of test that can determine a real winner between these cars in stock form. Also, its not as simple as displacement. Endurance-race prepped Corvettes and 911s match up quite well. The extra cooling of the larger block is partially counteracted by the extra friction that having extra pistons invariably causes. Displacement is not really the measure I would use to predict a winner.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 15, 2008 3:00 pm) Mazda did it here with a very small displacement engine: http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2004-Mazda-RX-8-Record-Run.htm If you do some searches you'll probably find other manufacturers do this with their cars, with various changes. Or maybe more impressive: http://www.saabhistory.com/2007/01/25/the-last-saab-9000-503087/ "The ‘Long Run‘ endurance test on the Saab 9000 at the Alabama International Speedway in Talladega, Alabama, U.S.A. in October 1986 played a major role in strengthening the sporty image of the car. Over a period of 20 days, Saab staged an incredible record run with three standard production Saab 9000 Turbo cars. This resulted in 21 new international records and two world records - the foremost of which was a distance of 100 000 km at an average speed of 213.299 km." I would be quite upset if I paid $70K+ for a high performance car, and if it was only good to run for 20 min. or so at a time! I would expect these cars to be able to run 150mph+ for their full warranty period. Otherwise since you're bound by the laws on the road, you might as well get an Accord V-6.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Apr 16, 2008 5:27 am) Race engines actually are more "fragile" than a stock engine, as they usually run higher compressions and rpm. Uhh... they also have higher specific power outputs with those considerations. They are hand-built that way. If you added the extra power to a stock engine, the race engine would outlast it every time. After every 24-hour race, you overhaul the entire drivetrain regardless. I would fully expect a large normally aspirated engine to run for 24+ hours at an rpm a few hundred under red-line, especially with a synthetic oil. They do these as bench-tests to determine reliability. There really is no point to doing it on a track with a fully manufactured car, because you will be removing that engine for an overhaul afterwards. I would expect these cars to be able to run 150mph+ for their full warranty period. Why? There is only one type of situation in which that could ever occur: (from your article) 24 hours of non-stop maximum speed around the 7.6mile-long banked circuit at Papenburg test facility, near Hamburg in the north of Germany. So you want the GT-R and Z06 to win a NASCAR endurance competition. A banked oval? 7.6miles? That is probably one of the biggest ovals in the world. The drivers likely never had to downshift except to pit. What does this prove? Even NASCAR drivers have to downshift more than that because their long tracks are only what, 2 miles around? If you are working towards moving the 'supercar' benchmark towards fuel efficiency, #of laps or distance travelled over 24-hours, the RX-8, Z06, 911, GT-R would all lose to an MB 320 CDI. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=105638# This isn't exactly the test for supercars. If this type of test is what impresses you most, why bother comparing cars that were designed for cornering and acceleration?
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 16, 2008 7:08 am) The point that manufacturers have historically made by taking their vehicles and running them for 24+ hr at high speed (relative to their capabilities) is to prove that the design of the engine, drivetrain, and associated systems are of a high quality. If an engine is built for 400hp, can it maintain operation near that or is that simply a peak, and you better drop the power after 30 min, or as you say it will "grenade". And while you can't think of a reason to do it in an actual vehicle instead of a bench-top, I'm sure the engineers would like to see if the air entering the car at 150+mph is adequate for cooling, do the oil and trans. fluids overheat, ... If you have a 500W stereo in your car and you want to play it at maximum volume you should expect it to function fine year after year, not catch fire after 30 min!  My expectations are that large displacement engines as in the Vette, Viper, AMG's, Lambos, ... will run just fine long-term at 150+mph. They are not pulling that many rpm's. As displacement goes down and turbos and superchargers are added to a vehicle, I become more suspisicious of whether they can maintain their peak power levels. I think it was fitting for Saab and Mazda to prove their cars could run near peak power hr after hr. That is a good indicator of a quality design.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Apr 16, 2008 11:09 am) You realize what sized engine the Mazda has right? It's a 1.3 liter. Yes, reliability is great. They should test and prove it for all vehicles. But it is not proportional to cylinder displacement at any speed. The cars you have selected have absolutely no inherent advantage based on the number of cylinders. At this point it very much sounds like a tail-wagging-the-dog argument. You want to find some reason to judge smaller, turbocharged engines as inferior, but you are guessing as to how that would occur. But your idea of a long-term reliability test isn't bad for any company to try, as long as its is not for the purpose of racing. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 16, 2008 11:58 am) I think we agree on that. As far as engine size goes, I'm not saying small and forced induction engines can't endure if designed properly. I think they have a higher burden of proof though, as they are stressed more, typically running higher rpm, and turbos that are heating the oil that much more. If you want to put it in terms of athletics, I think there is a lot to be said for judging a vehicle as a decathlete, and not just judge who's best in a sprint or in the hurdles.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are The Japanese Poised to Dethrone the 911 AND the Z06?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan GT-R
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
