Corvette ZR1 topples GT-R at Nürburgring
28 Jun, 2008
92 Comments 
General Motors has toppled Nissan at the Nürburgring with its new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 supercar, lapping the benchmark circuit marginally quicker than the infamous GT-R.
The GT-R’s blisteringly quick lap of 7:29 cemented its position as the greatest bang-for-buck buy on the market, and has since been the target for manufacturers keen to claim a spot in the bargain performance stakes.
A successor has emerged from a very unlikely source, with General Motors development engineer Jim Mero driving the Corvette ZR1 around the Nürburgring in a time of 7:26.4 – almost 3 seconds faster than the GT-R.
Aside from additional safety and communications equipment, the car used was completely stock, running the factory Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tyres – developed specifically for the ZR1.
Chassis alignment, ride height and engine calibrations were all set to factory specifications with the car running on standard pump fuel.
The lap was electronically timed and verified by two hand-held stop watches with a rolling start as per industry practice.
GM plans to release the full in-car video of the record breaking lap in the coming week.
Location: Home / Car News, Chevrolet, GM, Nissan / ...
Print it:
-
June 28th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
All that European sophistication and continuous technological research only to be beaten by a pushrod.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Well done GM
*Maybe* that engine can find its way inot a HSV too?
Cheers
F-0
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 1:15 am
It took a 460+kw Corvette that weighs 1500Kgs to edge out a 358Kw 1770Kgs Nissan. GO CHEVY!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Not directly comparable. The GT-R competes with the Z06, not the ZR1, and it destroys the Z06.
For the real comparison, this needs to be compared to the future V-Spec, and I can see the result already…
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:10 am
To all those American car bashers who said US cars don’t go around corners. Corvettes have always handled as good as some of the sports marques from Europe.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
beautiful looking car, bloody impressive time as well.
i can see the shit-storm now from skyline fan’s trying to disprove and talk it down in anyway they can lol
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Why is the GT-R infamous and not famous?
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I always pish myself laughing at tossers who look down on the Chev/Holden V8 because it has pushrods.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:52 am
You know how we can tell the morons?
They are knocking the pushrod engine.
The corvette is a technical wonder, a bargain cut price supercar. And the amazing thing is it done this with a regular H pattern manual. When you take into consideration how fast those duel clutch gearbox’s shift, it would most likely take another 10-15 seconds off the time on a track that long.
This didn’t just beat the GTR, in the real world, it shattered it.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Why is the GTR directly comparable to the Z06? In what way?
They are both being released in a few months time. The Z06 is years old.
Also Z06’s sell for significantly less money in the real world. Chances are you can pick a Z06 up for 20 grand USD less than a GTR.
All that matters is right now, the Corvette > the GTR.
Its a victory of a classic performance car over a playstation. A proper manual gearbox over a duel clutch. A RWD car over AWD and most importantly light weight over high technology.
And not only that, it does it all with style. Unlike the GTR.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Just adding i think the GTR is a brilliant, brilliant car. But the fans make you glad it has been overthrown.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Pushrod IS inferior… I think youd have to be missing a few screws to think otherwise. Thats not to say it can achieve great power… with enough displacement!
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
There ya go!
Now all you rice burners can shut up.
General Motors development engineer Jim Mero. Clearly this man’s job should include racing :) The next ‘Ring 24 hour event perhaps.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:35 am
If you want to have this pushrod is inferior debate, look no further than the LS3 as opposed to Ford’s Boss V8
The LS series engines are extremely light, make massive power and a brilliant torque curve, and and cheap to produce.
If thats not your number one priorities in an engine over having the ability to say “mine is better it has double over head cams therefor is better!!111″ than you have some screws lose.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
JW Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Not directly comparable. The GT-R competes with the Z06, not the ZR1, and it destroys the Z06.
For the real comparison, this needs to be compared to the future V-Spec, and I can see the result already…
————————————————————————————————————
Oh can you really? I hope you know that the GTR V Spec already has an unofficial lap time recorded which is only one second and a bit quicker than what the Corvette ZR1 recorded. And what CarAdvice forgot to mention is that there was a strong headwind on the main straight which would have negatively affected the ZR1’s time, so it is capable of being even quicker.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
good read…3 seconds faster is smoking.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
3 seconds faster is smoking.no doubts or excuses.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Fairdinkum…………..majority on here wanting huge power and waffle on with absolute BS about your beliefs (which stem back to what you believe in as a kid) and then on same people on other threads state better fuel economy (hybrids, electric, etc). CLASSIC DOUBLE DUTCH!
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
There is no substitiute for cubic inches!!
Vote:Nice looking car.
June 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
If the LS motors are so good why didn’t GM develop the 7.0L engine from the Z06 lord,they had 7 litres to play with!!!.why..? because the easy out was to have a supercharger on a large capacity engine.
Vote:The pushrod LS has very little capacity to be developed NO WAY is it high tech.and neither is the 6.2L
There’s no doubt the ZR-1 is very quick but don’t say that it’s a magnificent example of automotive engineering because compared to not only the Japanese but the Europeans-it’s early 1970’s technology :)
June 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Tom said:
“If you want to have this pushrod is inferior debate, look no further than the LS3 as opposed to Ford’s Boss V8″
EXACTLY. Check out the latest Wheels mag. The 5.4L Ford DOHC V8 gives up 0.6L of displacement yet produces MORE torque and MORE power over the ENTIRE rev range.
Thats right, from idle to 6500rpm the BOSS motor trounces the LS3.
Looks like all that technology has counted for something! Even the the 5.7L LS1 engine never came close to the 315kw output the current BOSS motor puts out! (And thats with a 0.3L displacement advantage!)
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
What is with that interior, it is all twisted? Pretty odd looking. Would be impossible to convert to RHD easily…
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Fasthonda: Funny how 1970’s technology still outdoes this state of the art Japanese/European technology. Technology may be greater but Pushrod still is a strong engine which can compete with the much higher tech 8’s on a performance level.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Im glad were getting plenty of cheap super cars comming though just gos to show you dont need mega big dollars to go fast.And all this comparing gtr and corvette realy who cares there both super fast and cheap and thats what its all about, not having to put porsche money up to buy some good kit. i know i would consider gtr for same money as new hsv comming out is this corvett as cheap as the gtr dose anyone know.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
how about fuel comsumption? anyone know which car using less fuel?
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I read an article on net about the V-spec GTR, the source said new time for GTR on Nurb ring is 7:23 something. Any idea anyone?
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“how about fuel comsumption? anyone know which car using less fuel?”
This gets the Prize for today’s most idiotic comment.
Who cares? When did you last refuse to fly on a Jumbo because it uses more fuel than a DC10.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Just quickly like to point out that most of the lap times are incomparable due to dissimilar circumstances. Different drivers, safety concerns, different start conditions, different track lengths, road debris and the like.
Granted, the Corvette was probably faster round the track, but I’m just not impressed. With an engine THAT big it should have smashed the GTR by 30 seconds, which it didn’t.
That whole “more cubes” argument is stupid and tiring. More important is the power/torque curves, and even more important is in-gear acceleration, something not properly seen on the power/torque curves.
So yeah, the Corvette was faster, but I still find that car unattractive and uninspiring. If the second biggest car company in the world started making cars that used modern technology and smashed lap times at the ring, then I’d be impressed.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Ross Says:
\”EXACTLY. Check out the latest Wheels mag. The 5.4L Ford DOHC V8 gives up 0.6L of displacement yet produces MORE torque and MORE power over the ENTIRE rev range.
Thats right, from idle to 6500rpm the BOSS motor trounces the LS3.
Looks like all that technology has counted for something! Even the the 5.7L LS1 engine never came close to the 315kw output the current BOSS motor puts out! (And thats with a 0.3L displacement advantage!) \”
—————–
That was a bias dyno and you know it. Power figures mean nothing at all.
And you can keep that technology, if all of that threehundred-and-fifteen killowats was significantly slower than what the holdens were running back in the LS1 days. It absolutely got tramped by the LS3 Holden.
You can brag about the dyno numbers all you like. But the fact of the matter is both the LS3 and Boss use very similar fuel consumption, the LS3 is far lighter, the Boss motor weighs the front of the falcon down making it understeer (this is wheel known) and when it comes to figures that matter, like acceleration and in gear response, the LS3 destroys the BOSS engine.
So yes, you can keep your technology.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“how about fuel comsumption? anyone know which car using less fuel?”
The Corvette is the second most fuel efficient exotic car, behind the Porsche GT3.
LS* engines are very effective on highway driving, trumbaling along at low rpms
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
While the Corvette is probably an inferior car overall to the GTR, I would buy the Corvette anyday, but would struggle to part with the cash for a GTR. The Corvette looks much better on the outside, has an unclutterd, and actually relatively stylish interior (I know it doesnt exactly stand up to those from more expensive German’s, but it actually looks alright). In regards to Maxxj31, i did a quick search on the matter of a 7:23 time, and could only find the time on one site, so probably not reliable. The narrow minded award for this week goes to Ross. Power and Torque are not everything mate. While the Ford V8 may have more power than the Holden V8, you may realise that the Fords engine is from last years FPV’s. You also seem to be under the illusion that the FPV V8 has more power than the LS3. Erm, well, it doesnt. 315 for the ford to 317 to the HSV, while the Ford v8 has 1Nm extra. The new V8 FPV’s are slower in every aspect to the LS3 HSV’s. If you want a performance Ford, the F6 is the only option.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
GTRmon Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Granted, the Corvette was probably faster round the track, but I’m just not impressed. With an engine THAT big it should have smashed the GTR by 30 seconds, which it didn’t.
———————————————————————————————————————
Are you insane? Do you even realise what it takes for a car to get under 7 minutes on the Nordschleife? Anything that quick is too impractical to be driving around town. The Corvette ZR1 and the GTR are both relatively practical sports cars with various creature comforts. Yet the Corvette beats every single current supercar on the market.
And btw, the Pagani Zonda F and the Koenigsegg CCR both not only have more outright power than the Corvette, but they have power to weight ratios that absolutely blow the Corvette out of the water. This is the pinnacle of European engineering with their fancy modern technology, yet even these million+ Euro supercars can’t beat an old PUSHROD engine.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Chucky it’s six-point-f*cking-two litres, supercharged. I would absolutely expect it to be matching it with the euro 12’s. Which, by the way are not necessarily all that fancy sometimes.
The practice of making enormous engines is just plain poor engineering practice, and I don’t care to give credence to such huge automobile company which is unwilling to embrace change.
And again, non-standardised lap times round the ring are hardly the be all and end all of supercar comparisons.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Recless1! you said you dont care about the fuel comsumption. But nowaday it’s a main issue and lots of people care and concern about fuel price. You might have “unlimited” supply of fuel but i dont.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Article quote – “the car used was completely stock”,
But Edmunds article suggested it was close to stock, meaning they did some tweaks around the car..
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
V Spec will smash this time by another 5 seconds lol. Nissan, and the GT-R are the king of the ring.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
firstly ”maxxj31” if you can afford one of these cars… you dont really care about the fuel comsumption… only people that care about fuel comsumption by prius and corrolla or what ever… not a Twin turbo V6 or a supercharged 6.2 Push rod V8…
and the arguement about Ls3 vs Boss 315… at this stage the better engine is the LS3… but yes it does have 0.8 displacment. but at this stage ford is happy as they have the all mightly F6 310Kw / 565Nm… only problem with the F6 getting the power to the grown off the line… but it has a better top end then the LS3. that right a turbo charged inline 6 have a better top end then a 6.2 V8
but Congrats to GM with this victory over the GTR. one thing at like about GM is starting to put good performance cars together… Ford America will have to strike back…. either with a Super car with the Twin Turbo V8 boss/Hurricane engine or a V10 with ford Europe to do the handling. lets hope…. yes its a GM product… but i do like seeing muscle cars beating ricer burners. but staying this put these 2 cars on a tight narrow twisty track and no BIG staights and the GTR should it eat it up…
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Just remember there is just going to be temporary, being GM’s pinnacle machine, we have the GTR’s Vspec, NSX, new porsche 911 etc all vying for the top spot.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Joober, if you had read the entire sentence you would have seen the car used in the test had additional safety and communications equipment – otherwise completely stock.
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
GTRmon Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Chucky it’s six-point-f*cking-two litres, supercharged. blah blah blah blah (go to sleep time) ….
———————————————————-
Nobby you’re missing the point. WTF has displacement got to do with it? What about WEIGHT? PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS? EFFICIENCY? LESS MOVING PARTS? CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE? Nobby I’d rather a lighter, smaller packaged engine that can be placed in a smaller space and lower in a cars chassis to produce a better balance and handling car. WTF does it matter if it’s 1000000 CI in size? Who cares. Physically it’s smaller and lighter than anything coming out of Europe or Japan in terms of performance engines with the exception of maybe a rotary. You’re a dweeb and your argument has no solid basis. You talk of 6.2L like the engine is the size of a truck. It’s displacement size not physical size you knob!
GM tried going down the path of over head cams, multi valves etc. The tiny gains in power were far outweighed by huge heavy badly packaged engines. Look at Ford, it’s V8 needs a bonnet bulge to fit in the Falcons engine. Physically larger and heavier than any LS engine and also slower in every test an XR8 or GT has been in by a long way! So much for OHC multi valve technology (_i_)
Vote:June 29th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
unless your a professional racing car driver, the corvette would probably be very difficult to control. on the other hand any joe blow can jump into the GTR and drive it like a pro.. simple fact is that the GTR would be much easier to drive fast in and more appealing to car enthousiasts. Im basing this on the power/weight ratio’s, in terms of speed on paper the corvette should be smoking the GTR, but i guess the dual clutch and AWD go a long way… imagine the GTR had a similar p/w ratio……
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 12:06 am
The ZR1 is a monster vehicle which does not require the engine to be pulled apart at 100,000km for the cylinder liners to be sprayed like the GTR. Value for money the ZR1 is the best car on the road today
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 6:24 am
pity, i have seen people running their Holden V8 or Ford V8 on gas.Good luck to ZR1, GTR has lots more potential and engine upgradeable.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I would be happy with ether of these cars.But i think if i was going to buy i would sway towards gtr just for the simple fact that i can take my mates with me and there golf clubs as we always go on golf tours and thow into the mix that thing called rain then the gtr just shines though even more still just as quick off the line in the wet. I think much better all round car and cheap as well . I think the corvette if it even gets here will be much more exspensive
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Did anyone notice the random placement of the hand brake?
I looks as if they start building it as a RHD and changed to LHD half way through.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
The BOSS is a crap engine compared to the LS engines, heavy and tall it over steers like crap and it’s placed to forward because it’s so big infact compare the new FG XR8 to the SS. Drive tested the new fg xr8 motor which is a ba gt motor and it acheived 6.3 secs compared to the ss which achieved 5.3,has 20kw less but 10nm more. The 5.7 HSV GTS 300 was infact the fastest sedan in the world in 99 achiveing 5.1 secs to 100, eventually outdone in 2002 by the mercedes e55 supercharged. HAHAHA ROSS your funny the 5.7 trounches the boss check out your ba gt’s 5 speed manaul thats a joke even the vt had 6 speeds, what times did the ba gt’s get or any boss engine?? dont talk power the engine still get wrekced. I can asure you the ve series 2 or vf hsv will have 327KW and 580Nm.
Even the ss-v is quicker than the fg gt which recently achived 0-100 in 5.4 or 5.5 as opposed to the ls3 r8 which got 5.1 and the typhoon 5.1 (the fastest time yet for typhoon) in the lastest wheels magazine.
Don’t criticise the LS engines when they have not been suspased by any boss engine the power outputs mean nothing mate it’s the quality of the engine the LS3 should be pulling out 580NM which is standard, because of auto driveline restrictions it’s capped at 550, once they change the auto to the 6L90 it would be fine. The boss engines are the weakness in the fg range as many reviews suggest that’s why ford only have one v8 in their range and are changing to the 5.0 litre mustang motors.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
John Says:
\”Nobby you’re missing the point. WTF has displacement got to do with it? What about WEIGHT? PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS? EFFICIENCY? LESS MOVING PARTS? CHEAPER TO MANUFACTURE? \”
mate you got it 100%, this is the argument i always say, but people can\’t seem to grasp it. A Ls3 weighs less than some 4 cylinder engines with an iron block.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Before you knock displacement, remember by adding a turbo you are effectively (and theoretically) adding displacement to your engine.
The calculation is related to the amount of boost you are running. I believe 7psi effectively equates to an increase in engine size of 1.5times.
Therefore a Twin Turbo 3.8L V6 x 1.5 = 5.7L (equivalently)
Genereally the smaller boosted motor will equal the bigger displacement motor for not only power, but also fuel consumption.
Displacement and engine technology is irrelevant if the motor is well designed, well built and most of all light.
Vote:Don’t forget all new engine have to meet Euro 4 emmissions and if they meet this requirement, it doesn’t matter how they make their power
June 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
As for the Boss 5.4, the main problem with this engine is not it power/torque (which equals the HSV\’s).
The problem is getting power down to the ground.
Have a look at the terminal speeds at the 400m mark of any test. At this point the GT\’s are generally hitting the same speeds or higher than the HSV\’s.
Vote:GT\’s have been losing too much time off the line, which can be fixed with a bigger and wider set of wheels/tyres. Which is exactly what HSV\’ have done with their cars (275\’s on the rear vs 245\’s on the Fords)
June 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
So Alec,how much displacement is the ZR-1 adding with it’s supercharger?
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Now let me see. Who one the GT 1 class at Le Mans? That’s right, a quad cam Aston Martin over a factory backed Corvette. So when we talk about which is better cubes or quad cams I know where I’ll put my money on.
And when someone says that a car can go around the Nürburgring quicker than another car, well who cares. But if you say that a car won Le Mans in the GT 1 class, which is a 24 hour race then that stands out to me. As for the GT-R, like I said for the Corvette, who cares.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Fast Honda,
Vote:I provided the calculation, so I’m sure you can work it out for yourself.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Got it in one Alec. Finally, somebody who has a clue.
Fasthonda: Enough for it to still record similar fuel consumption. Sucks to be beated by an old school pushroder hey. Sugar coat it all you want, there it is in black and white.
GTR = FAIL
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Why bother with the whole pushrod v overhead cam or RWD v AWD arguments. What I see as important is that a non modified Corvette has beaten the GTR’s time. Well done. If the V spec lowers the mark again… fantastic. And bring on the new 911 turbo as well.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Agree. No doubt Porshe have left an ace hidden in the depth of their sleeve.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Reckless1, I second that motion on Maxxj31’s comment regarding “Fuel Consumption”. If anyone is interested in these cars, or is able to aford to buy and run a ZR1 (or GT-R), I don’t think they would be too worried (or give a sh!t) about fuel consumption and cost.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Alex, if all the Boss requires is a better launch, than how come its rolling acceleration times are also significantly slower?
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Wont be long when somebody else will break these records on a race track. Cant wait till a hybrid does this or even something more efficient than these gas guzzlers. Like i say its all about efficient cars now and records are meant to be broken
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Tom,
Vote:As for the slower rolling acceleration times, that I can’t explain. But on the very next page of that Wheels Mag article they Dyno Test both Ford and Holden V8’s and the the Ford had more power and torque than the Holden, so the slower times definately weren’t due to the engine.
Only explanation I could give would be the gearing and possibly the driver, because the very same month Motor Mag acheived a 5.4 and 13.4 for the 100km’h and 400m sprints. (and I know Motor tests with only 1 person in the car vs wheels 2)
If an auto GT was tested, the times may well have been a lot better
June 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I still can’t get over the fact the ZR-1 traps over 130MPH over the 1/4. That’s amazing, many 9-second cars trap the same sort of speeds. Awesome.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Or Alec, maybe you could consider it a lying dyno.
The fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, kw numbers don’t really mattter, what does matter is on the road performance, and its well known all BOSS motors struggle to get into the 6’s for the 0-100 sprint, and are always roughly a second slower on the quarter mile than the Holden testing
Thats before we get into the fact they weigh a shit tonn, and make the car understeer.
You pushrod haters really don’t have a leg to stand on, stop making excuses and look at the facts.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
the fact is….gtr that did the 7′29 was the “base” model…..corvette is ZR-1 (top spec)
nissan is already working knocking 150kg off the gtr for v specs and any other spec they make
i can see 7′15 for v spec gt-r…guess we have to wait and see
one thing for sure is…it will cause more arguements *LOL*
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Well, in fact-fact, the GT-R was not 100% factory-spec either. Who cares about model spec either, it’s all about pricing and the ZR-1 is only $US103k
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Wow, time to ignite the Ford vs Holden debate.
1. Boss Engine is not a car engine. Not developed for cars, for trucks. The fact that Ford Aus has turned this powerplant into a competitive engine is a credit to the engineers of Australia, not America. Sure, it’s slower to 100 in most test’s seen (not by much though, giving away about .2, .3 seconds according to Wheels), but remember that its backed by crazy gear ratios and crap tyres. It does make more power in all dyno tests seen, so shut up with the unsubstantiated “biased dyno” Tom and stop whinging. Produce evidence! Such as the GT’s higher terminal speed at the end of the quarter.
Also, don’t say the handling is terrible. XR8 was better in terms of handling than the SS in a recent motor review. But I guess motor is a bunch of knobs that don’t know shit, isn’t that right Tom and Senator? Fact is, they’ve driven both cars back to back and I think they’d have a better idea than you. In last months GTS vs GT issue of Wheels, the main issue with the GT was not nose-heaviness, but the ride was tuned more to comfort than the GTS – hence Grand Tourer. So, contrary to popular belief, the Boss isn’t the sluggish piece of crap it was before Ford Aus touched it.
2. LS engine is a multi-billion dollar engine designed specifically for cars (with some applications for trucks, but not based around that), made by Chevrolet. It is not a Holden engine – it’s taken straight out of the crate by Holden or HSV at the factory and plonked straight in. Holden has no V8 development team. Holden has just been fortunate enough to have a parent company that has had foresight to produce well-performing engines. Holden is lucky, Holden fan-boys. No use getting past it. Faster than the Boss (to 100), so it should be – but not by much. For an engine of its size (6.2 litre) , if it employed modern technology, it should be making more like 375 kilowatts, such as in the AMG engine, with QOHC. Not compact, too big you say? Fits in a C class. Not that I would want them to make a QOHC engine, especially when you consider that Chevrolet has to make it for cheaper than the AMG (though the price difference wouldn’t be as much as you would think). The LS’s suffer from enough reliability issues in their simple pushrod design (as is depicted in several tests, engine temps much higher than the Boss, despite the alloy design) Enough said. Now comes the next funny part…
3. The 4 litre L6T. This shows what happens when Ford Oz has a clean sheet design for a performance engine – well not quite. The 4 litre was never really intended as much of a performance engine, and it is truly amazing that a development team that could quite easily fit in a cupboard could design an engine capable of trumping both the Boss and the Multi-billion dollar push-rod bonanza LS3 – with a 40 year old iron design! And with resale of V8s falling rapidly, with all its fans are buying V8s for one last hurrah, Holden has nothing to fall back on. Except for a *cough* Supercharged V6. And if it was good, there’s still nothing like a V8 is there, as you all have said? The Turbo 6/Holden Supercharged *snigger* and LS3 can’t be compared, two different applications, apples and oranges you fellows might say. Face it, the V8 is dead now, and Holden fans seem to not like the proposition of anything but a V8, as “they’re entirely different machines”. What will you buy when petrol is $3, $4 a litre? Survival of the thriftiest. Adapt. It’s nice how you are all quite happily discussing how the Chevrolet V8 beat the Nissan V6 though. Fascinating…
So back to topic, I hope that shuts that Hold…Chevrolet V8 brigade up once and for all. I didn’t really want to come in, but I guess being a one-post-wonder means I need to elaborate on several issues.
Vote:GT-R – base model (and for now, only model)
Chevrolet ZR1 – King Model, with the benefit of being able to be benchmarked against the GT-R
GT-R – soft riding, easy to drive around town (according to initial reports)
Chevrolet ZR1 (and indeed ZO6)- Track car in road cars clothing.
Nissan will up the anti with the V-spec, just you wait. When they see this minor Nurburgring issue, you can guarantee that Nissan will be aiming to beat the ZR1 by a similar margin. Competition is great!
June 30th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The seven year old Enzo’s 6.0L produces 485Kw and 657Nm.
Vote:The current 7.0L Zo6 has 377Kw and 637Nm.The ZR-1 manages 476Kw and 819 Nm.
You can’t tell me that technology hasn’t played a part with the Enzo.Chevy wouldn’t have a hope in hell in achieving the same power and torque figures of the Enzo unless,they produced a NA 9.3litre engine and tried to make that pushrod engine rev beyond 7000 without exploding!
The undeniable fact is that there is greater flexibilty with non-pushrod engines.
You pushrod lovers are really fighting a losing battle and you KNOW IT!
June 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
wow well said starky.i spose when u look at it the corvette should be quicker.Lets see forced fed 6 litre in lighter car v forced fed 3.8 litre in heavier car.when you put it like that you know technology is put to good use in the gtr no ifs or buts.The corvette should be way faster but in fact its only 3 secs over 11km track quicker.something not right there for the corvette should be miles up the road buts its not.But at the end of the day its just good to see lots cheap fast cars who cares what valves or how many cyclinders thay got its all about the packedge as thay say and ifs its all done well then u get what we got here 2 different cars getting the same thing just in different ways.corvette bit more simple big forced fed motor, gtr bit more tecnology to get to same end result
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
yep your right there imagine if the gtr used a 6 litre motor what thay would get out of it corvette thay just taken the ezzy way out but that also keeps cost down i spose
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Tom,
Vote:I am no push rod hater as you should have been able to determine from my previous posts. As I already have stated, it doesn’t matter what the engine tech, if it is competitive, IT IS COMPETITIVE.
As for a lying dyno, nice one mate.
Ford now measure KW (since FG) using the pessimistic measurement whereas Holden (since VE) now measure using the optimistic (DIN KW I believe). This is a complete reversal as up until this time ford used the DIN, while Holden used the other. What this means is that if the Holden was Dyno’d using the Ford measurement method it would probably achieve a lower KW reading… As would have all Fords up until the FG.
Read into it what you will, but I think Holden did this to provide a more marketable increase in KW for VE over the VZ 6.0.
The Dyno figures should have come as no surprise to anyone who knew about these changes
June 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think someone hit the nail on the head in here when thay said the reason the ford is slower even though its got more power at the wheels were it counts is the gearing is much taller for grand touring as the plate say gt if thay put lower gearing and fatter rubber as thay do in holden then that would be very interesting . but at end of the day i think the gt is more refined and more comfy and better as all round package and thats not my opinion all the mags say the same in the real world were u spend all your time on the road who cares if the gts is few tenths quicker road a track. I know when i set sail on holidays up coast the gt will be right at home
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Starky, all you said in that was more raving about technology, money spent, capacity, and clutching at straws regarding the Ford v8.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
look at all the closet GM fans come out and celebrate as if cure for cancer was released.
I’ve seen this bad boy in person and spoken to a couple of engineers, well they were at the industry night at detroit motor show… and yes it is a mighty car.
But, someone mentioned this shatters the GTR… comparing oranges to lemons.
[1] GTR is priced to compete with the Z06.
[2] The ZR1 is priced at over 120K USD… which would mean 400K in Australia, if it ever was to be released there, not to mention the convertion to fit Australian regulations, so you are probably looking at Ferrari price tag. Someone mentioned affordable supercar??
The GTR is going to cost 140K AUD, which is steep already, but still half the price of the cars it beats in performance.
[3] V Spec version, which was to be lighter and fitted with race components, will most likely match this time. And the V-Spec will only be an extra 20-30K in price.
I have nothing against the ZR1, its friggin beautiful, especially in person, those real wheels where massive, Michelin even had their own ZR1 all decked out in black and red calipers and it looked so intimidating.
Its just alarming to see some fans here say its affordable… its more than TWICE the price of the current Z06…..
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Cool, I think we’ve established the Corvette is a fast car with old technology, no denying it.
What irritates me is that such a huge automobile company continues to endorse outdated technology in its flagship car. I am not at all surprised the Corvette is fast, they’ve had 30 years to refine the technology.
But seriously, the whole point of a flagship or halo car is to prove how clever your engineering design is. Like the Enzo, the R8 and the GTR. All of these cars are packed full of exciting new technology. The concept of a halo car is you walk into a dealer and go, “Man, I saw Audi has some awesome technology on the R8, so they must be a good company. I’ll have an A3 diesel thanks.”
Does the Corvette, a classic car with excellent heritage, do the same? “Hi, you guys are still using pushrods and leaf springs in your best car. I’m might go and buy a Ford instead.”
In an age where we need much more technology in our cars to keep the ol’ ICE relevant, the Corette is doing the motoring industry a disservice.
Honestly, if you want a powerful pushrod engine buy an old Corvette, or a Mustang, or a Charger, or something from that era. It would be more valuable and much cooler.
And stop saying rice burner, it verges on racism and ignorance.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Few feather ruffled here by the sounds of it. Roll on GM. Who gives a stuff about consumption, pushrods, economy Daaahh it beat the current record GOT IT.
Vote:June 30th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The GTR is a great car but it is AWD drive if we had AWD in the ZR1 i am sure the performance figures would be even better
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 8:39 am
Don’t forget this ZR-1 still uses H-patten, non some trick double clutch setup.
And whats this about the ZR-1 worth $120k? The RRP is $103K
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
GTRmon, what useful technology does the GTR have?
You look at the halo car as some sort of concept, show off car. It’s not, its something people love to buy, and love to drive.
Alot of people don’t want 4wd, a computer controlled chassis, and they definitely don’t want an automatic gearbox. Even if the gearbox saves 10 seconds of the nurburgring time
There is a reason why the F40 is most peoples favorite ferrari, it’s back to basics. Not dissimilar to the zr1.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
The GTR has also been hailed as a track car in road cars guise, often critisised for it’s overly firm and harsh ride compared to the ZR-1
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Tom a halo car is a kind of a concept car. It’s a road car that shows off clever design and innovation. A halo car says more about a company than their concept cars, because halo cars are actual cars, not just half built ideas on a stage.
The GTR is packed full of new stuff: carbon fibre driveshaft, transfer case/gearbox is at the rear of the car in a totally unique design, ceramic coated cylinders (I think motorbikes have had this before but this is the first road car to have it).
That’s why I like the R35, it’s a masterpiece of engineering more than 10 years in the making. The ZR1 just doesn’t have that appeal. The ZR1 is oldschool engineering. Brute force fed through the rear wheels. I tire of that approach, it’s been done already, show us something new.
I also don’t agree with a comparison to the F40. The F40 is great due to its character, but also it’s hardcore-ness. The paint was spread ridiculously thinly over a CFRP monocoque chassis. It had no frills, no luxuries inside. No carpet. The ZR1 does have luxuries, it’s not a stripped down race car made road legal.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
GTRmon what do you actually drive?
You say you tire of that approach blah blah blah.
Unless you actually drive these type of cars, i don’t think its fair to say what you ‘tire’ of.
I’ve driven plenty of skylines, they are effective to a point. But honestly, why wouldn’t you just buy a Evo X and save the change?
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
evo just doent have the same street creed as gtr and we all no most people tweak there gtrs there buit with heap more left in them if u wont to go there
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I drive a ‘90 R32 GTR. I can’t afford an evo. Plus if you’re trying to compare the evo X to the R35, it’s a bit off the mark.
Vote:The R35 is a totally different beast to the skylines.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
You can’t really say the new GTR’s have heaps left in them. Nissan has made it very difficult to modify them
It also appears that they have somewere from 550hp-580hp stock. Well over what Nissan are quoting.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“Starky, all you said in that was more raving about technology, money spent, capacity, and clutching at straws regarding the Ford v8.” Tom.
I hope that’s not your response! Once again you automatically dismiss arguments that go against your own, without any evidence whatsoever – not too dissimilar to your “Biased Dyno” opinionated dribble. How bout, seeing how often you seem to be on this site (your replies are spread across entire days), and how much free time you seem to have; you could bother to respond?. Besides, you were the one that brought up the Boss V8, mate. You were asking for it. The pushrod fanboys are on the retreat…
Regarding the actual topic, ZR1 is simply a specced up ZO6 with the main development – in a typically American way – being the engine. GTR is a purpose built car with new technologies – such as the only 4WD car with the transmission in the back. Also has a fantastic new engine (aka, not an existing one with a supercharger), a new gearbox and styling completely different to anything else (whether you like it or not is irrelevant – it looks different, and you can’t argue it looks anything but fantastic in profile)
EVO – tarted up Lancer
Vote:WRX STI – tarted up Impreza
ZR1 – tarted up Corvette
FPV F6 – tarted up Falcon
Nissan GT-R – unique from the word go, purpose built in every way, a true successor to the GT-Rs of yesteryear.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
yes thats what i thought but in japan thay have already worked out how to get around computers with remapping bit more boost and stuff there already getting up to 100 hp with out doing to much.It was only a mater of time will be just like all old gtrs there very upgradeable
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Yes i think nissan r up to there old tricks of under quoting power how good is that i wish all car makers did that instead of always saying what thay hope to get or what thay whont you to belive thay got ,
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Starky, you say ‘tarted up corvette’, like a corvette is an economy car like a lancer or impreza?
Are you going to say the vspec is a tarted up GTR?
A corvette is an amazing performance car in it’s own right.
And is the GTR’s engine not from the VQ family? Just as the LS9 is from the LS family?
You can’t say a corvette isn’t purpose built from the ground up to be a performance car. Every single corvette has at least 400 horsepower. In a light, 2 door coupe.
I beg to differ about the main development about the ZR1 being the engine, significant work went into the braking system, aswell as the the suspension and drivetrain. The ZR1 sits lower than a Z06, and with those monster carbon ceramic brakes will stop faster than the mighty GTR… again and again and again.
But this is a pointless argument, i’m not saying the GTR is a bad car, far from it. But i’m saying just because they have developed a high tech gearbox and awd system, doesn’t make that in some way superior.
Vote:July 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Yep your right tom its not superior its just a different way to get the same end result.I think he saying it uses better technolgy with less power and smaller motor to get same sort of speed in stead of taking the simpler path
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Let’s face it.
The GTR does all of the thinking for the driver (he just points and shoots). The GTR isnt a car you have to explain to the uniniated about with pictures of the ‘ring etc. Hell, The GTR wont turn a single female head if your out showing off the metal (unless you arrive at a playstation convention).
As Bill Paxton said in True Lies
“The ‘Vette, gets ‘em wet”
Really though, they are both awesome cars that go about doing the same job in a very different way. Take your pick. You’d not be disappointed in either.
Vote:…and will continue to do so for as long as its driven.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Base Corvette starts at $46950 US
Base GT-R starts at $69,850 US
ZO6 starts at $72125 US
ZR1 starts at $103300 US
So yes, the GT-R V-spec will be a tarted up GT-R, but the GT-R V-spec starts from a much higher base. And as you can see from the prices, the GT-Rs more natural opposition is the ZO6. So if it\’s fair enough to wait for Chevrolet\’s reaction to the GT-R, I think it\’s more than fair to wait for Nissan\’s reaction to the ZR1.
Also, Tom, while the VR (not VQ) engine was based on experience gained from the VQ series of Nissan engines (possibly also another VR Le Man engine), it is clean sheet with 353 kilowatts – as opposed to the massive amount of 476 kw made by the ZR1 – it isn\’t a car, it is an engine on a light chassis. So, I would think that the fact that the GT-R was able to hold its own without ceramic brakes, with a 123 kilowatt shortfall, weighing an extra 220 kilos and being more than 30 grand less is the most amazing part really. Keep in mind this is base-model…
Alternatively, seeing how important it is to us all to be the fastest car around the Nurburgring, how bou\’t considering the Radical SR8 for $116,795 US – half the price difference of the GT-R and ZR1, but does the Nurburgring 30 seconds faster!
Realistically though, the V-spec will be faster – cars have been timed around the \’ring at 7:26 already; the Nissan engineers will be certain to up the anti now that the Chevy has been released. The Lexus LF-A has been clocked at 7:24 around the ring also. Don\’t expect more exotic companies to take it laying down either. And remember, no matter whoever is king, the GT-R started it all.
Vote:July 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Very true starky
Vote:August 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
for this year with dealer mark ups the zr1 and the gtr are going to be out the door for very similar prices and this year the zr1 is the faster car. its really pretty simple this year the zr1 is the better bang for your buck. personally i don’t care what technology a car uses, its about speed. i don’t say wow look at the R8 and its cool technology i say wow look at the R8 its way more expensive and slower than a z06. Now the GT-R is an amazing car and its a great deal, but personally i prefer a manual. the corvette is the flagship car and it makes GM look good plain and simple. the GT-R makes nissan look good plain and simple. look guys we have two $110,000 dollar cars than can smoke just about anything no matter what the cost. this technology conversation is bogus and annoying. all that matters in the end are the performs numbers and these are two amazing cars
Vote:April 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
”
Base GT-R starts at $69,850 US
ZO6 starts at $72125 US
ZR1 starts at $103300 US
So yes, the GT-R V-spec will be a tarted up GT-R, but the GT-R V-spec starts from a much higher base. And as you can see from the prices, the GT-Rs more natural opposition is the ZO6.”
vette fans are downplaying the price differences
Vote: