Here's edmunds.com's long-termer (which they have roadtested hard and used in comparison against the ZR1) clearly showing wear on its inside edge:

http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/2...new-tires.html



As for heavy's contention that the Sport Auto GT-R test doesn't count, the whole point about why everyone from Porsche, Corvette, BMW, etc boards has depended on the Sport Auto supertests is because they are done with completely production-spec vehicles. The whole point about the GT-R taking that long to test was because there was not yet a German/EU-spec production GT-R available for testing. When such cars were finally made available, they were tested. Including by Auto Motor und Sport, who tested that same exact GT-R. They recorded 0-62 mph in 4.1s, and 0-400m in 12.2 @ 118.7. Compare that with edmund.com's fully production-spec customer car recording 11.8 @ 118.6 mph for the 1/4 mile (402m). That German GT-R also recorded a lower peak lateral g reading in Sport Auto's standardized lateral acceleration test than the ZR1. There is absolutely no basis to disqualify that GT-R's supertest result, unless you want to disqualify every single other supertest result on the basis that you "just don't like it." And let's be honest: that's what this sour grape ultimately boils down to. heavy & monaro are pissed that Sport Auto achieved a time that was previously considered IMPOSSIBLE for a car with the GT-R's stated power and weight (the Sport Auto car actually weighed some 30kg more than the factory claim too, LOL).

As for the ZR1, well, 12 seconds between GM's claim and bonafide 'Ring expert HvS (touted as a legend in these forums) proves that Mero's car was a RINGER, using monaroLogic™.

You can bet your pretty penny that Saurma drives any car to its absolute potential.
ANY car.

 

And BTW, an Italian magazine has tested another GT-R to similar times to that Sport Auto car.
0-400m in 11.94s @ 191.6 kph (119.1 mph)
0-180 kph in 10.50s vs 10.6 for Sport Auto

They also dyno tested the car and found it produced a whopping...4.6 PS more than the stated 485 PS.



This same car, on the Bridgestones and not the faster Dunlops, recorded a 2:48.73 on the Balocco circuit.
Z06 - 2:50.30
997 Turbo - 2:51.64

 

Contidrom tracktimes:
1. GT-R with 1.30,95 min and 224 km/h topspeed
2. ZR1 with 1.31,14 min and 233 km/h topspeed


Being a comic book guy, we can all safely assume that you know nothing.


And I thought the 'real car' people would have known that from years of experience.

 

The facts are there. The GT2 can't consistently out-perform the GTR in time attack:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=4717b80e35715

HP isn't the advantage on the 'ring that you think it is. Whilst it's true that a car with 100bhp would struggle no matter how light, the more and more you get above 500bhp and 300bhp/ton, the harder the track becomes and the harder it is to make use of the extra power. You can only go round the high-speed bends so fast before you reach a position of having to judge braking points and lift-offs.

 

From the look sof it thet dynoed it, which would show the awhp not the engine.

485awhp does not equal 485hp. If this GTR did have the advertised hp then was it the same GTR that got flogged by every other supercars when driven by Alain Prost?


Whats your point, isnt the GTR the easiest car to drive and hasnt HvS driven that car several times? It does take a more skilled driver to drive a harder and more powerful car like the ZR1. Chris Harris even summerised this when he compared the GTR and GT2.

I find it odd that the ZR1 seems to have gotten
-7:38 from Sport Auto and
-7:41 from AutoBild with a wet/drizzling lap.

while the GTR has had
-7:51 from Car Magazine
-7:56 from Driver Republic wet sections
-7:50 from the first Sport Auto test wet section and
-7:54 from Porsche
-so far the potential from the GTR seems to be a 7:38 with many testers casting doubts on the factory numbers.

 

This is why people think that the ZR1 and GT2 can actually achieve its advertised time, it just takes more skills to do.

The GTR on the other hand is a playstation on wheels. The question remains why it still cant achieve anywhere near its advertised time when it is so easy to drive.

 

^ Nissan GT-R - 7:38

Corvette ZR-1 - 7:38

My point ends there.

 

HEY! That looks like my tire.

 

Ok the point end there. Both ZR1 and GTR cheated around the ring .

Jasper just admit that Nissan used a ringer, the GTR's time discrepancy from factory time is just too great, especially when it has been tested so many times.

 

lol....

 

Nissan first brought the GT-R to the 'Ring and boasted a 7:38.

Sport Auto reproduced that EXACT time.

No ringers required. When will you drop this?

After we can agree on that, I think we can bring in Chevy's advertised time for the ZR-1 (and Z06 - supposedly from a standing start), and compare that to Sport Auto's times.

And then we'll just take aaaaaaalllllllll of those points about the ZR-1 and then replace the word "ZR-1" with "GT-R".

 

The dyno chart shows BOTH. It's not 485 awhp. Enough of your goofball conspiracy theories.

Uh, let me guess. Maybe Prost drove an S1 GT-R on Bridgestones with VDC-R (or even all normal settings)?? The possibility never crossed your mind? The Quattroruote test was done well in advance of the official EU release of the GT-R, and before other journalists and owners mentioned the limitations of VDC-R (excessive braking and strange behavior on downhill sections).
What was the average speed on that course? Notice once again that on a fast, flowing track (the NRing), the ZR1 can pull out no advantage over the GT-R, but on a tighter track (HRing), the ZR1 was a second faster. Your theory that the ZR1 would stretch its legs on the fast circuit and demolish the GT-R is crushed yet again.

No, what he said was he got closer to the GT-R's max potential in those conditions on the Nurburgring. That does not mean that he (or even Rohrl) would necessarily approach 100% of the GT2's absolute max potential and power delivery on any lap of the 'Ring, even in perfect bone-dry conditions.

And no, the GT-R isn't easy to drive to its absolute true max limit. I've already quoted enough sources saying quite the opposite. You choose to ignore it out of obvious bias and hate for the GT-R. Quit wasting your (and our) time with your unfounded innuendo. The ZR1 is said to be easier to drive at the limit than the Z06, yet HvS was no faster in the ZR1 (vs GM's time) than he was for the Z06. In any case, you yourself said 'Ring expert and legend HvS would be able to extract the absolute best out of any car. That includes the ZR1.

The fact of the matter is, you and others doubted the original 7:38 time given the GT-R's stated power and weight. When Sport Auto replicated that time (even with a GT-R that weighs 30kg more than the claimed figure and apparently produces well within tolerances of the claimed power, and even while driving with VDC-R), they really exposed your blind hatred and pure ignorance of the car's capability.

We don't know that the timed AutoBild lap was drizzling. They gave the ZR1 4 laps. It was drizzling on the first 2 laps. And they said the time was delivered on the 3rd lap. The implication being it was not drizzling for the 3rd lap.

So now, using your own logic, we have 3 instances of GM cheating with their Corvettes.
C6: ~22s slower, given the same timing method of flying starts and minus pit straight
Z06: ~12s slower, given the same timing method (Magnussen reached 7 kph faster on DH than HvS in the ZR1)
ZR1: 12 seconds slower

Oh, and BTW, the ZR1 was beaten by the Scuderia on Spa-Francorchamps (not exactly an auto-X course) in a same-day comparo by Sport Auto France. The driver was a European Corvette racer too.
Scuderia 2'40"00
ZR1: 2'41"69

 

Sue your school.

The blue line is awhp. The green line is drag. The red line is blue + red + SAE correction.

 

As ive said previously the 7:38 time is representative of a stock car. However Nissan wasnt content in a stock time and so they changed it to 7:27. I am not the only one who doubts this time and so far all tests have shown that the GTR cant achieve this much hyped about time. The GTR has had many tests already and is aparently an easy car to drive, far easier than the GT2 and Zr1, so why cant anyone achieve a time close to Nissan's?


You can do that, but make another thread, this one is about the GTR.

So again was this the car driven by Alain Prost? Was this the car that got its a$$ handed by the GT2 and Ferrari? If it is the same car then it really proves my point, which is a stock powered car cant run faster than the GT2 when driven by a SKILLFUL DRIVER.

This VDC-R excuse is getting very worn out and is a typical excuse used when even a very skillful driver cant achieve a phenominal result. Alain Prost knows how to drive a car, with and without electronic aids. I and many others regard him as one of the best racing car driver and definately far better than Suzuki.

One test from the Zr1 which odly enough was close in time for a wet lap done by another publication. HvS has also had the GTR twice around the ring the first one with a 7:50, many others also driven the GTR around the ring. I say give the ZR1 a chance to set a good time, just like the GTR with its 4 or so other Nurburgring tests.

There is potential for the GT2 to achieve a faster time but not so much wiggle room for the GTR since its already close to its max potential.

What was the GTR's wet lap time? was it anywhere close to 7:41? Nope.

 

The hell you did. After Sport Auto released its fahbericht (7:50) and Porsche released its "test" (7:54, only 2s faster than a Panamera Turbo LOL), you and your masters were saying 7:50 was the GT-R's true potential. You misquoted HvS every second you got (he never said 7:50 was the car's true potential; you made that up). It was only after the supertest which recorded that time that you finally conceded 7:38 was possible.

Easy car to drive fast, not easy to drive to its true limit. Learn to read.

How could it be the same car if Prost drove a GT-R that was far in advance of the official EU release of the car??? The one Prost drove was a Japanese-spec car, and RHD. Does Prost normally drive a RHD car?
Of all the same day tests between the GT-R, GT2, Scuderia, and/or LP560-4, Prost's is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb. You think about that for a moment.

Prove to me where he can outdrive Suzuki in a GT-R. Go ahead.
It's no excuse, it's a legitimate explanation, voiced by professional race car drivers and owners alike. You are neither, and you haven't even driven the GT-R, so why should anyone here take your word over others with far more experience?

The ZR1 is the THIRD C6 Corvette that HvS has driven around the 'Ring. It's also easier to read and manage at its limits, more progressive in letting go than the Z06, so why couldn't HvS narrow the margin to GM's times?
Some of those many others you talk about only did one timed flying lap (DR & Car), in cold and damp/oily conditions right after a VLN race with autumn leaves on the track (DR), or with a RHD car driven by a LHD driver and with road works present (Car). Some of those "others" have a vested interest in selling Porsche 911 Turbos and NOT Nissan GT-R's.
LMFAO. You still think this is 100% exactly comparable to how Nissan achieved its times. So frickin' sad.

Where did the ZR1 get 7:41 on a wet lap?? The Auto Bild article said there was drizzle on the first two laps. For all we know, it could have been very localized drizzle affecting 1 or 2 corners. Nowhere did they say the 3rd lap (which got the time) was wet. Man, you are making up all kinds of excuses that are not even mentioned anywhere in the article.

monaro, let's cut this short: Did you or did you NOT say that HvS extracts the absolute max potential out of any car? Aside from a serious reading disorder, inability to understand fairly simple charts/graphs, it looks like you may be suffering from severe amnesia, so I'll remind you to read what you wrote before you answer:
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1563035079-post113.html