Semi-official ring times for the vettes
07-17-2005, 06:34 PM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Well these times are from the mouth of Mr. Hill take em or leave em. They were made on run-flats, they didn't use hoosiers or anything like that.
07-17-2005, 07:56 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by y2ks2k,Jul 17 2005, 08:31 PM
I agree, I would take a Ferrari or an NSX before the Vette, even if they cost 5 times as much period. I like the C6 a lot.. but I'd still take any Ferrari over it period
Full ring
8:18 - C5
7:59 - C6
7:56 - C5 CE Z06
7:43 - C6 Z06
07-18-2005, 12:56 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are however wrong about the R32GTR breaking the 8 minute barrier, that was the R33GTR, which was indeed modified (speed limiter was disabled, the boost was turned up, and the suspension and ATTESA were modified). A stock R32GTR did it in 8:22.
You may very well be correct here. I do remember a couple 'ring pros going to Nurburgring with the GTR in question (but stock), 911 Turbo and a Caterham. They spent the whole week there trying to get the best out of the GTR and best they managed was 8:20somehting while with the Caterham they managed 5:58 (or somehting close to it). It was a great article by one of the main magazines and was used to disprove the 7:59 Nissan claim for a stock GTR at that time.
R34 GTR did it in 7:52.
I've never seen this time so I'm wondeirng about it's validity? Who/when was this time clocked and when/where was it published? Do you know?
Personaly I don't know of any reputable times for the R34, but if there is something then I'd like to know about it.
The latest Sport Auto has the C6 in the Supertest. Nurburgring lap time was 8:15.
There we go - this is something that can be classified to be 'official' and also is directly comparable to the 911, Ferrari and M3 CSL times that are being mentinoned. Same driver, same track configuration and all in dry conditions.
You may very well be correct here. I do remember a couple 'ring pros going to Nurburgring with the GTR in question (but stock), 911 Turbo and a Caterham. They spent the whole week there trying to get the best out of the GTR and best they managed was 8:20somehting while with the Caterham they managed 5:58 (or somehting close to it). It was a great article by one of the main magazines and was used to disprove the 7:59 Nissan claim for a stock GTR at that time.
R34 GTR did it in 7:52.
I've never seen this time so I'm wondeirng about it's validity? Who/when was this time clocked and when/where was it published? Do you know?
Personaly I don't know of any reputable times for the R34, but if there is something then I'd like to know about it.
The latest Sport Auto has the C6 in the Supertest. Nurburgring lap time was 8:15.
There we go - this is something that can be classified to be 'official' and also is directly comparable to the 911, Ferrari and M3 CSL times that are being mentinoned. Same driver, same track configuration and all in dry conditions.
07-18-2005, 04:56 AM
#28
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by gran1,Jul 18 2005, 04:13 AM
The point of DavidM's post is that the times are not comparable if they are not set under standardised conditions. Nurburgring lap times are neither a religion nor a meaure of your gullibility, it has nothing to do with what you "believe".
even a Carrera GT with another 100bhp and superior aerodynamics "only" did a 7:32.
Take a look at the "false analogy" you alluded to in DavidM's post, that's what he is questioning.
even a Carrera GT with another 100bhp and superior aerodynamics "only" did a 7:32.
Take a look at the "false analogy" you alluded to in DavidM's post, that's what he is questioning.
even a Carrera GT with another 100bhp and superior aerodynamics "only" did a 7:32.
7:28 --- Porsche Carrera GT, Walther R
07-18-2005, 05:02 AM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by DavidM,Jul 18 2005, 08:56 AM
There we go - this is something that can be classified to be 'official' and also is directly comparable to the 911, Ferrari and M3 CSL times that are being mentinoned. Same driver, same track configuration and all in dry conditions.
07-18-2005, 05:02 AM
#30
Registered User
I think DavidM has one of the most level headed posts here.
With that said - all the hullabaloo over Corvette vs. Porsche is a no contest for the Vette if you're looking at lap times. If I'm not mistaken, based on these probably non definitive times, the OLD z06 is faster than the new 997. The new C6 (non Z06) is as well. I believe that the old Z06 is faster than the new 997 S(I admit i have not gone searching for ring times -it's a great assessment of a cars overall abilities based on length, and variety of turns, but not my final say on car purchase).
I love Porsches - all of them (well except the 924 - thought the 924 GT was cool), but on a pure dollar for performance - i don't think they come close to a Corvette, and haven't as far back as many C4s.
As I read from a cynical Corvette fan, one car is intelligently designed with the engine where it should be allowing advanced engineering, the other struggling to overcome a poor engineering decision. True or false - it's that struggle why I like the p-cars (specifically the 911), though neither my liking them, nor their engine placement, is rational.
But corvettes are pure monsters
With that said - all the hullabaloo over Corvette vs. Porsche is a no contest for the Vette if you're looking at lap times. If I'm not mistaken, based on these probably non definitive times, the OLD z06 is faster than the new 997. The new C6 (non Z06) is as well. I believe that the old Z06 is faster than the new 997 S(I admit i have not gone searching for ring times -it's a great assessment of a cars overall abilities based on length, and variety of turns, but not my final say on car purchase).
I love Porsches - all of them (well except the 924 - thought the 924 GT was cool), but on a pure dollar for performance - i don't think they come close to a Corvette, and haven't as far back as many C4s.
As I read from a cynical Corvette fan, one car is intelligently designed with the engine where it should be allowing advanced engineering, the other struggling to overcome a poor engineering decision. True or false - it's that struggle why I like the p-cars (specifically the 911), though neither my liking them, nor their engine placement, is rational.
But corvettes are pure monsters