So last month an M3 beats a GTR and 911, even though it looses every performance category.

This month a GTR beats a Z06, GT2 and ACR even though it looses almost every performance category?

Whats the point in comparing performance cars if the top performance cars don't win? I understand there has to be some livability criteria but shouldn't that weighted less when doing this type of comparison? Hell, this comparison was labeled ultimate track test and the ACR blew everything away. Unbelievable car. There are several tuners out there with a 700HP kit for this with simple IHE + PnP upgrades. I would love to see the ACR go around the Nurburgring or even be compared to a ZR1 in the future.

The track test was BW #13, the GTR got 2:01, but Road and Track managed to get 1:56 around same config? 5 sec difference? Also the GTR pulled a 4.1 to 60 and 12.6 at 111 in the quarter? Something must have been wrong with it? I have seen 3.3 to 60 and as high as 124 in the quarter..

 

See, that's the crap I'm talking about. If based on how abused the GT-R is or it's state of tune, it can run between a 111mph and 124mph 1/4 mile trap speed, something is wack.

I'm anticipating some significant warranty issues with the super-duper transmission/drivetrain in the GT-R over the next few years. You heard it here first.

Read that article and the Viper ACR WIPED UP the competition around the track. IIRC, it was like 5 seconds faster around the course than any of the other cars. The Porsche GT2 wasn't as fast as I thought either. The Z06 barely pulled it to 150mph.

It wasn't weather either because the Z06 trapped 124mph and the ACR trapped 126mph, so the weather and surface conditions were obviously okay to put down some power. The GT2 and GT-R just didn't show up in the power department for some reason.

 

The Gt2 was fairly quick around the track, but still something like 4 secs behind the ACR. The 0-60 times were good. The ACR hit something like 3.4 and was the fastest. Everyone complains about RWD not being able to handle real power, but that's BS. It just needs stickier tires. The interesting thing to me is the GT2 and ACR use the same tires and the ACR just dominated that car. The trap speeds were pretty good, but the 1/4 elapsed times weren't great. I was expecting them to be better after seeing the very fast 0-60 times.

The GTR has never trapped at 124 that was corrected...and corrected incorrectly. I too am confused by the fact the GTR is not consistent.

Scans:
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23102

 

[QUOTE=AP2_RR,Jun 26 2008, 06:16 AM] So last month an M3 beats a GTR and 911, even though it looses every performance category.

This month a GTR beats a Z06, GT2 and ACR even though it looses almost every performance category?

Whats the point in comparing performance cars if the top performance cars don't win?

 

I don't mind this kind of thing as long as it is fully detailed what it is they are looking for, how they are weighting it, etc. I don't agree w/ calling it "ultimate track test" though unless it is all about the track.

 

The ACR trap speed is affected by drag since it has so much down force. I think it has lower trap speed than regular viper do to this.

 

I wonder if something affected the turbo'ed cars?

 

Whenever I read the comparison tests I disregard any magazines 'winner'.
I do exactly what most people do and that is read the performance results and make my own conclusion.

I know we have talked about this before and you either agree or disagree but the magazines DO operate for profit and IMO you can always substitute the words 'for profit' with 'bias.'
And then on top of that you have the individual drivers own biases to take into account. It's hard to believe but some people out there just will never give a NA manufacturer any credit as they believe they just cannot compete!
And then you have the tester who has his preference before the test and blinders on towards whatever other vehicle is being compared. This is human nature...much as we have fanbois here reading the results, is it not conceivable we have fanbois writing the results?

 

A few things worth mentioning:

1. This test was brought to you by the same morons that rated an M3 above a 911TT and GT-R.

2. This test did not hire a professional driver as in the case of R&T and Steve Millen.

3. C&D is a dying mag that is desperately trying to bring attention to itself via these antics. To true enthusiasts I would suggest moving on to other magazines like EVO and CAR. If you must read US mags, consider R&T.

 

Argh - it always chaps me when they do this. It's one thing to test sports cars on the road AND the track, then declare a not-so-apparent winner but when it's all about ultimate track vehicles, the fastest car around the track should (more or less) be the winner. I mean, if it's stripped, has no A/C, and breaks down, it shouldn't win but otherwise, the best PERFORMANCE machine should be the obvious winner.