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: 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
|
|
|
Replying to: british_rover (Mar 15, 2008 1:01 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Mar 14, 2008 8:45 pm) I'm not the only one either, since the only source that claims a 7:40 time for the SLR is Autobild, and even they admit the time is improbable and unofficial; not meant to be taken seriously. In other words, the two-ton SLR making it around the Ring in 7:40 is as unlikely and as scientific as the Nissan GT-R making it around the Ring in 7:35. We can't believe anything the mfr does without at least one witness. Here's Autobild, on the SLR's 7:40 time and I quote: "Quite close at the limit lies the values which drove walter Roehrl with the Porsche and Klaus Ludwig with the Mercedes during testing and which just as unofficial is as meaningful: Ludwig created with the SLR impressing 7,40 minutes - and Roehrl drosch the Carrera GT in hardly conceivable 7,28 around the course." And it all makes sense. A two-ton slower luxury GT car gets 7:40 when that same car stripped of everything to bring weight doen to 2,900 pounds gets about the same result? C'mon, now! That's as believeable as the 7:35 time for the GT-R! I could find no more on this SLR achieving the 7:40 time any where else except this one magazine report: link title This is far more realistic, but still a little optimistic, IMHO: "7:52 --- 157.12 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren (sport auto 06/04)"
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pmc4 (Mar 15, 2008 5:17 pm) That SLR time is an official time, not a munufacturer claim. So is the Carrera GT. So its not unlikely and unscientific. Welcome to reality. I don't care what moron wrote that quote you are using, the Carrera GT ran a 7:32 officially. And the SLR McLaren is a direct competitor to the Carrera GT in price and performance. The Corvette was never the fastest car out there, it is not the fastest car out there, and it will likely never be the fastest car out there. There is no way you will be able to eliminate all the cars that are faster than the Corvette on weight alone. Look at the Bugatti Veyron (4200lbs), the Mercedes CLK DTM AMG (3700lbs), Porsche Turbo (3600lbs) I picked the SLR because it is very similar design to the Corvette, only heavier and faster. The SLR is faster than the Z06 in every single recorded aspect. Acceleration, top speed, braking, cornering. It is a far more advanced car despite its weight and high price. If they put as advanced an engine, suspension, or aerodynamics into the Z06 it would be going faster than the SLR, but they didn't. That would have driven the price up. If you want to debate the GT-R's ability to outpace 7:40, thats fine because we have no official time. But no, you can't go back in time and say every official time that outpaces the Z06 is false. That's rediculous. Don't bother trying to be scientific or realistic, because you are only speculating and guessing. The official times stay official. And since the GT-R also is faster than a Z06 in acceleration, braking, and slalom, your theories about weight aren't really getting you anywhere on a racetrack.
|
|
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
