[Mingwan]

A lot of the guys on that corvette forum don't really seem to be standing up for the corvette like you would expect. They seem disappointed that the corvette couldn't deliver, or that it was advertised under false pretenses. I think a lot of people will be quick to jump on the fact that the GTR had octane booster, but they make a valid point that nissan explicitly advertises the Nismo to run on 93 octane in order to perform as advertised where as it seems like the corvette is unable to perform as advertised on 91 octane. So I think you can't really use that argument against the nissan. One of the members did some data tracking on exit speeds of both cars on the turns and the GTR is significantly quicker out of the turns than the corvette. The adjustments that GM will make to the corvette my improve the corvette's times, but I'm not sure if they'll ne able to overcome the acceleration the GTR produces on the turns.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Mingwan

A lot of the guys on that corvette forum don't really seem to be standing up for the corvette like you would expect. They seem disappointed that the corvette couldn't deliver, or that it was advertised under false pretenses. I think a lot of people will be quick to jump on the fact that the GTR had octane booster, but they make a valid point that nissan explicitly advertises the Nismo to run on 93 octane in order to perform as advertised where as it seems like the corvette is unable to perform as advertised on 91 octane. So I think you can't really use that argument against the nissan. One of the members did some data tracking on exit speeds of both cars on the turns and the GTR is significantly quicker out of the turns than the corvette. The adjustments that GM will make to the corvette my improve the corvette's times, but I'm not sure if they'll ne able to overcome the acceleration the GTR produces on the turns.

Agreed, but there is no way the GTR can match the braking performance of the corvette. I think it is about even through the apex but pulling through the back end is all GTR.

I knew from the beginning that something was going wrong with this test car as well. RP comments did not match other track reviews and it seems that the alignment in the rear is the cause of this.

With the release of the A8 z06, you would think that MT would use that option when comparing to a DCT equipped competitor. Why not make the playing field even if there is an option to do so?

Finally, I agree with your point about the octane and what the z06 is advertised as. But you know what, they also put in the manual that for optimal performance, run 93. So why neuter the z06 when you are putting octane booster into the GTR.

Each of these circumstances alone do not have a significant effect but together can cause serious discrepancies. Chevrolet should have taken more steps to ensure a proper testing vehicle but isn't the job of MT to report fair and unbiased findings. I think the biggest fail is that MT did not do their due diligence when conducting such a high profile comparison.

[Mingwan]

i think you're putting too much blame on Motortrend. Historically, they have favored GM so it really makes no sense for them to make an effort to put the Nismo at an advantageous position over the corvette. (Think back to how they favored the zr1 over the GTR, as well as the z28 Camaro). 9/10, they use cars that they can get their hands on, so it is incorrect in assuming that they chose the MT version of the corvette in order to afford the GTR the advantage with its dual clutch transmission. Also, the difference between how the Nismo is advertised versus how the corvette is advertised is as follows. Nissan explicitly state that in order for the GTR to perform as advertised, 93 octane is recommended. GM however advertises the corvette as producing 650hp and 650ft lbs of tq with the use of 91 octane if I'm not mistaken. So really, we have one manufacturer claiming that in order to achieve 'X' performance levels, you must use 'X' fuel where's as the other manufacturer claims that 'X' performance can be achieved using 'X' fuel, however under a pretense of uncertainty. This scenario is no different than the fiasco that happened with the first generation GTR's launch control system. I think nissan learned something from that...finally, the responsibility of ensuring that a product's functionality is at its absolute best is largely at the hands of the manufacturer, not the medium by which the manufacturer uses to test and advertise their product.

[DocWeatherington]

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Mingwan

i think you're putting too much blame on Motortrend. Historically, they have favored GM so it really makes no sense for them to make an effort to put the Nismo at an advantageous position over the corvette. (Think back to how they favored the zr1 over the GTR, as well as the z28 Camaro). 9/10, they use cars that they can get their hands on, so it is incorrect in assuming that they chose the MT version of the corvette in order to afford the GTR the advantage with its dual clutch transmission. Also, the difference between how the Nismo is advertised versus how the corvette is advertised is as follows. Nissan explicitly state that in order for the GTR to perform as advertised, 93 octane is recommended. GM however advertises the corvette as producing 650hp and 650ft lbs of tq with the use of 91 octane if I'm not mistaken. So really, we have one manufacturer claiming that in order to achieve 'X' performance levels, you must use 'X' fuel where's as the other manufacturer claims that 'X' performance can be achieved using 'X' fuel, however under a pretense of uncertainty. This scenario is no different than the fiasco that happened with the first generation GTR's launch control system. I think nissan learned something from that...finally, the responsibility of ensuring that a product's functionality is at its absolute best is largely at the hands of the manufacturer, not the medium by which the manufacturer uses to test and advertise their product.

Agree with both parts of what you said. MT has favored Chevrolet in the past and I am mistaken for making it seem like it is Motortrend's fault. Chevrolet should 100% have verified that the vehicle being used was Track prepped as according to the owners manual which includes alignment, balancing, brake bedding, etc... Also, if better performance is to be had with 93 octane fuel, then they should state that maximum output will only be achieved with 93 octane. I have a feeling that no such statement exists in order to not lose sales from states similar to California.

Nissan did learn, hopefully Chevrolet does as well.

[hellrotm]

Motor Trend retested the Z06. Z06 in the GTR comparo had non oem rear caster specs for some reason, -2 degrees.

Carlos has new Z06 figure 8 video up on youtube. In comments section he mentioned Randy was much happier with the car with correct rear caster. He was quicker around Big Willow. Carlos also commented on how much better it was around figure 8. He completely changed his tune about the car, he absolutely loved it.

Followup test should be up on MotorTrend soon, according to Lago.

[Mingwan]

itll be interesting to see how the corvette has changed this time around.

[DocWeatherington]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Motor Trend retested the Z06. Z06 in the GTR comparo had non oem rear caster specs for some reason, -2 degrees.

Carlos has new Z06 figure 8 video up on youtube. In comments section he mentioned Randy was much happier with the car with correct rear caster. He was quicker around Big Willow. Carlos also commented on how much better it was around figure 8. He completely changed his tune about the car, he absolutely loved it.

Followup test should be up on MotorTrend soon, according to Lago.

Thanks for the find BlackjetE90



UPDATED 3/14/2015

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by DocWeatherington

Thanks for the find BlackjetE90



UPDATED 3/14/2015

The last minute of that video, Carlos comments are very telling.

[DocWeatherington]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

The last minute of that video, Carlos comments are very telling.

I agree

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by pgviper

I said it from the start that there was some funky shit going on with the test car used in that comparison...

Be on the lookout for "updated" results.

Originally Posted by DocWeatherington

Thanks for the find BlackjetE90

Z06 retest is up on Motor Trend website. This time with proper rear caster specs.

The manual Z06 was 2.1 secs quicker around Big Willow, beating the Nismo GTR by .70 secs.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._track_retest/

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Z06 retest is up on Motor Trend website. This time with proper rear caster specs.

The manual Z06 was 2.1 secs quicker around Big Willow, beating the Nismo GTR by .70 secs.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._track_retest/

The king is back! It's not a question of "will" but "when"... This car will be in my garage one day!

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by pgviper

The king is back! It's not a question of "will" but "when"... This car will be in my garage one day!

A bit disappointed to read this, though:

That said, Corvette chief engineer Tadge Juechter recently told Corvette fans the automatic transmission runs hotter and will go into a preservation mode sooner, so he recommends the manual for serious track duty or when the ambient temperature at the track is above 86 degrees. The high ambient temperature on our test day was 70 degrees.

[///MCFC]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

Z06 retest is up on Motor Trend website. This time with proper rear caster specs.

The manual Z06 was 2.1 secs quicker around Big Willow, beating the Nismo GTR by .70 secs.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._track_retest/

ffs did anyone actually read the article? to save face, GM optimized the alignment AND damping just to suit this particular track. and who knows what other mods their frantic little engineers may have made.

[Revcrazy]

Originally Posted by ///MCFC

ffs did anyone actually read the article? to save face, GM optimized the alignment AND damping just to suit this particular track. and who knows what other mods their frantic little engineers may have made.

+1. Let's even things out and bring in the GTR engineers and the Z06 will lose again.

What GM did was almost the equivalent to what Ferrari does in trying to win every comparo.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by ///MCFC

ffs did anyone actually read the article? to save face, GM optimized the alignment AND damping just to suit this particular track. and who knows what other mods their frantic little engineers may have made.

Originally Posted by Revcrazy

+1. Let's even things out and bring in the GTR engineers and the Z06 will lose again.

What GM did was almost the equivalent to what Ferrari does in trying to win every comparo.

In the initial test Nissan employee provided octane booster for the Nismo. While the Z06 ran on 91 octane.

Lets call it even.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by whats77inaname

A bit disappointed to read this, though:

I agree with you on that. But I would never buy an automatic z06. If I were to go automatic, I would get a GTR and drive it year round

[Mingwan]

Originally Posted by ///MCFC

ffs did anyone actually read the article? to save face, GM optimized the alignment AND damping just to suit this particular track. and who knows what other mods their frantic little engineers may have made.

Nope.

[Mingwan]

And for the people that are too lazy to read, the automatic actually was slower on the track that day than the manual. In fact, it was still slower than the Nismo's original time. Mind you, this automatic car had identical tweeks the manual car also had as far as the alignment and dampening goes.

Pretty disappointed about the overheating issue with the zo6, though. Especially if you're looking to track the car on a regular basis. Maybe the standard version is the way to go. And by standard, I mean the naturally aspirated version.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Mingwan

And for the people that are too lazy to read, the automatic actually was slower on the track that day than the manual. In fact, it was still slower than the Nismo's original time. Mind you, this automatic car had identical tweeks the manual car also had as far as the alignment and dampening goes.

Pretty disappointed about the overheating issue with the zo6, though. Especially if you're looking to track the car on a regular basis. Maybe the standard version is the way to go. And by standard, I mean the naturally aspirated version.

Give them a bit to work out the kinks. I doubt they will admit there is a problem but you will start to hear from enthusiasts "for track duty, buy MY 20XX and above". The zr1 and zl1 had no problems being tracked and they are FI. Also, i'm sure there will be bolt on modifications to further increase cooling capacity.

[thebishman]

Originally Posted by Mingwan

And for the people that are too lazy to read, the automatic actually was slower on the track that day than the manual. In fact, it was still slower than the Nismo's original time. Mind you, this automatic car had identical tweeks the manual car also had as far as the alignment and dampening goes.

Pretty disappointed about the overheating issue with the zo6, though. Especially if you're looking to track the car on a regular basis. Maybe the standard version is the way to go. And by standard, I mean the naturally aspirated version.

Guys currently running 1:34 (iirc) at RA in a non Z07 M7 version in 70 dF weather and running their fastest laps at the end of the session with no overheating issues. This on the OEM MPSS tyres also.