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: bigmclargehuge (Mar 13, 2008 3:33 pm) Was that the one they would let nobody near because everyone new it was heavily modfiied, and no one who tested an actual stock version could come within 30 seconds of?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: sensai (Mar 14, 2008 8:17 am) AutoCar The rest is speculation made up by skeptics. I think its funny that Chevy's manufacturer claim of 7:59 with the C6 Z51 wasn't disputed. Racing is 99% driver ability anyway. Sure you have to be in a car capable of making the time. But look at how often the Z06 has been tested, and how no other driver has come close to 7:42. One lucky guy, one good day on the track. 13 miles without being able to make a mistake. Sure, anyone who buys the Z06 can pretend its a 7:42 car in their hands, but thats not really true is it. I'm not particularly biased one way or the other. If the R34 was being sold in the US when the Z06 came out, I'd argue in favor of the Corvette being a notch above. But technically since the R32 was developed in Japan in the late '80's, halfway through the product lifecycle of the C4 Corvette, the GT-R was actually years ahead of the Corvette. Then the C6 Corvette Z06 took it to the next level. I'm trying to please mutiple arguments by saying I think they are on equal footing, but if history repeats itself the GT-R is indeed poised to take the competition to the next level. WAIT AND SEE! Nobody is going to be proven right in a forum. |
|
|
with the same magazine (German magazine Sport Auto) testing the cars: New GT-R: 7:55 Current Z-06: 7:49 911 GT3 (997): 7:48 In the interest of full disclosure of any bias, I'll tell you that I currently own a Porsche and have previously owned two Z's.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Mar 14, 2008 9:33 am) We already know of another 3,800lb+ car that has done a 7:40. There's also a 4200lb car that did it in the same time (yes, with 1000hp, but it still has to be able to corner) Bottom line, weight isn't everything. I actually prefer lighter cars, but a fact's a fact. The R35 is fast. 7:50 is confirmed, in the winter of its release. The times are only going to get faster from here. If the R35 car hits 7:42:9 exactly I'm going to LMAO.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Mar 14, 2008 10:04 am)  Notice the irregular power delivery. Also what's of note is the narrow power curve, where 90% of the power is delivered in a very narrow band between 3,000 RPM and 5,900 RPM. What's also of note is the unfortunate and unused horsepower climb well after the limits of the engine's RPM redline is reached, suggesting premature tuning of the engine before it was brought to market. This dynograph shows the true limitations of strangling a small DOHC powerplant with two turbochargers. The next chart is of the LS7, the smallblock that powers the Z06 Corvette. Notice first off the near linear power delivery by what could be the smoothest torque curve of any engine in the industry. Also, 90% of power delivery occurs between 3,100 RPM and 6,800 RPM, making the engine deliver broader power than the Nissan engine by a very wide margin. Unlike the Nissan engine, horsepower drops off nicely with the engine's redline.  Have fun!
|
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Mar 13, 2008 2:05 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Mar 14, 2008 8:35 pm) First off, there are huge differences in the way a dynojet and a mustang dyno measure power and torque. If you can find 2 dynojet readings of both stock cars then we can have a discussion on it. Plus, I can find a well-calibrated dynometer reading on the R35 as well. And the GT-R's redline is 7K. You can't see that on either dyno graph cutout. You're really not making a valid argument by providing 1/2 the necessary data. R35 dyno Second, American V8s in general, and to no exception the Corvette still have pathetic specific power outputs. A decent European V8 will put out well over 100hp/liter. The GT-R's engine size is anything but strangled. The 2.86L I-6 in the R-32 to R-34 was factory de-tuned to keep from violating a gentlemen's agreement with Mitsu, Suby Toyo, and Honda, in which no GT car should exceed 280hp. It was actually a 400hp engine in original design. This new 3.8L V-6 has gone on the same dyno as a Porsche Turbo and has an almost identical power output and delivery, from a similar size. If you like the smooth power delivery thats great, but it doesn't seem to matter. The only technical considerations that seem to matter are the faster 0-60, 1/4-mile, slalom, skidpad tests the R35 has over the Z06. What excuse do you have for the SLR beating the Z06 around the 'Ring? I hope its good, since the 2-ton SLR tested at a faster 0-60 and 1/4-mile than the 'Vette as well. Same power/weight ratio but 800lbs heavier and both RWD. I think contrary to whatever you come up with, the answer is simply that the SLR has a better suspension and rear differential. And while we're on the subject, the SLR actually has a much more attractive power curve IMHO. SLR graph |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: british_rover (Mar 14, 2008 7:01 am) Exactly. A V6 is a cost cutting measure and thats it. You can also use a V6 in both a transverse and a longitudinal installation. The inline 6 is a better design but costs more money. You can get a low center of gravity with an inline 6 simply by mounting it at an angle like BMW does. You also give up some crumple space as the inline is a longer engine; that's one of the reasons why BMW sets the engine so far back relative to the front of the car. In any case, those drawbacks are overshadowed by the excellence of the inline 6 configuration.
|
|
|
I remember many manufacturers used to take their cars to a track and run them flat-out for 24-hours, to see how well they handled sustained high-speeds, and how many miles they could ultimately go. Indianapolis or Talladega would be a good venue. This is a good measure not just of what a driver can do in 1 lap, but it factors in mpg, drag, and wear on tires, amongst other things. That would be interesting data to have on the cars also. I remember reading in 1 of the car magazines where BMW's twin-turbo in their 3-series, ran a few good laps, and then embarrassingly overheated after those laps, and went into limp-mode. How well would these cars do when run near red-line for 24 hours? Maybe that's why the M-3 is now a V-8 with increased displacement over the last version? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: roadburner (Mar 15, 2008 9:40 am) Ahh yes that used to be true and that was the main reason why the V6 was so dominant for so long because of packaging concerns in FWD cars but... Volvo has inline 6 cars with a transverse setup now. The new 3.2 or 3.0 liter inline six they have can be mounted longitudinal or transverse by using the READ(Rear end Ancillary Drive) System. That inline six is used in the S80, XC70, V70 and the Land Rover LR2. The whole engine is about 23.5 inches long and in the LR2 at least there is over a foot of just empty space behind the engine for crumple zone room. I am sure the Volvos are like that too but I haven't poked around them as much as the LR2. Because of that huge crumple zone the LR2 was the first small SUV to score five stars on the Euro NCAP test. http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_freelander_2007/286.aspx
|
|
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
