The ACR is still the fastest at the Ring. SRT said that if they had a full week to spend at the Ring. They would of ran 7.18-7.19

wm

 

FTFY.

That said, while the ACR is much, much faster, it's also much, much harder to drive. The average weekend racer couldn't drive an ACR anywhere close to that time, while in the GTR, they could likely get pretty close to the official 'ring time. For the average joe, the GTR is a better car. Certainly a better fit for street use.

That said, I'd still take a ZR1 or ACR.

 

My mistake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordsch...test_lap_times

The ACR ran a 7:22.. And would run in the teens if SRT had a little bit more time at that track..

wm

 

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...ord/index.html

 

I thought the Spec V was going to have hp numbers in the mid 500's.

Either way, I love how it's constantly being compared to a 620 hp, and 103,000.00$ starting price ZR1 to a 70,000 GTR. The spec V doesn't impress me much now that I have seen the numbers. What sort of numbers would we see the GTR run if it had over 600 hp? Please.

 

impressive numbers as well... but again, i'd like to see the GTR with equal power at the same track... hell, i'd even settle for 50 more hp.

 

Equal power? Its all about stock vs stock..

wm

 

I realize the idea is stock vs. stock, but what's fair about comparing a ZR-1 with 638 hp to a 480 GTR? Of course it should be faster and IMHO, it should be more than just a second or 2.. the GT-R is actually showing the more impressive numbers if you want to say stock vs. stock.

 

I agree, that the GTR shouldnt be compared to the ACR, or ZR1. The magazines are real stupid with some of these back to back comparos sometimes. One thing that is really funny though. Is how come we havent seen the ZR1 go up against the ACR in a local track here in the States? The ACR has posted some fast times at Laguna Seca, Buttonwillow, Virginia International Raceway, Willow Springs Raceway.. Yet we havent seen squat from the ZR1. I smell some kind of conspiracy here. Sorry that I went a little off topic.

wm

 

Maybe because GM doesn't have any money for this type of PR that may only sell a hand full more of ZR1's.

 

The GTR is now $81k+. The difference in price isn't all THAT much when you consider that $20k isn't a big deal for people spend $80K+ on performance cars. As far as performance, there isn't much a comparison to be made - the ZR1 is faster.

 

point being that you could take that 20,000.00 and put into a GTR that would smoke a ZR1... if you want to talk stock vs. stock yes the ZR1 is faster.... on the track.... by 1. some seconds.... with 150 more hp. Impressive? Depends on if you are a GM fan or not.

 

I agree.

ZR1 with 620hp is around 500whp, when you factor in the usual 20% loss before the power gets to the wheels.

The GTR is underrated at 480hp, because it regularily dyno's in around 430whp+, as oppose to 400whp.

Cobb's claims with their stage 1 tune, the GTR will put out around 460-470whps, and almost 500 with stage 2. Which is far less then 20K, maybe not even 4k.

The 20k difference between the ZR1 and the GTR is quite signficant. Add 20k to the GTR in mods, it's not even going to be a contest between the ZR1 and the GTR.

If the ZR1 was 80k, then it would be King, at 100k I would get the ACR Viper instead.

 

Put $35,000 in a base $45k 'Vette and you will absolutely torch a GTR, ZR1 or anything else under $300,000. This is an age old argument that doesn't hold water.

Also, 1.x seconds is an eternity on the track. As I pointed out earlier, Motor Trend had the ZR1 about 1.3 seconds faster on a tight 55-60 second track. That is HUGE.

If the time on the track were extended, the ZR1's lead would likely keep growing considering it's about 500lbs lighter and has better brakes. The GTR would grease the tires and overheat brakes while the ZR1 is still going strong.

You don't have to be a GM fan to be impressed by the ZR1; you just have to be an automotive fan.

 

nice ride