Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

C7 competition

6K views 34 replies 9 participants last post by  dreamcars99 
#1 ·
GT-R:

NASHVILLE -- Nissan Motor Corp. has re-engineered the 2014 GT-R to squeeze out another 15 hp -- boosting the output of its 3.8-liter twin turbo V-6 engine to 545 hp.

That is nearly twice the muscle of Nissan's 2013 Maxima V-6 sports sedan.

The GT-R supercar also receives another 15 pounds-feet of torque next year, increasing to 463 pounds-feet.

Nissan will pull the wraps off the re-engineered four-passenger sports coupe Wednesday at the Los Angeles Auto Show.

The United States has become the largest market for the car.

Though production of the GT-R is tightly controlled, U.S. sales are forecast to rise 24 percent to about 1,440 during the current fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, says Carl Phillips, the GT-R's North American chief marketing manager.

Sales of the car have dropped 12 percent to 1,054 this year through October.The GT-R is assembled in Japan on a craft centerlike production line and U.S. dealers have lobbied Nissan to hike output.


The GT-R receives new fuel injectors for 2014 intended to improve acceleration at mid- and high-rpm ranges, and hand-stitched red semi-aniline leather seats.
But expanding production is a delicate challenge, Phillips adds.

The 2014 GT-R will come with a rear spoiler that is handmade using a rare weave of carbon fiber.

Each V-6 engine from the Tochigi, Japan, assembly line is hand built by a single technician. Starting in 2014, each car will bear an engine plate displaying the name of the technician who built it.

The car receives new fuel injectors for 2014 intended to improve acceleration at mid- and high-rpm ranges, and hand-stitched red semi-aniline leather seats.

The model will go on sale in early 2013 in two packages -- Premium and the Black Edition. Pricing has not been released. The 2013 Premium version starts at $97,820 and the Black Edition starts at $107,320. Prices include shipping.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20121127/OEM04/121129910#ixzz2DSs4Uqss

...and another source:

0-62 mph acceleration time of the 2014 Nissan GT-R has dropped even further. According to Nissan, the 2014 GT-R is able to get from nought to 62 mph (100 km/h) in just 2.7 seconds, which is 0.1 seconds faster than its predecessor. The Japanese carmaker say that the 2014 Nissan GT-R is more stable than before, and that it managed to lap the Nurburgring in 7 min 19.1 seconds in May last year. The car was still in testing at that time, so the finished product might be faster. Nissan expects
the 2014 GT-R to able to lap the "Green Hell" in 7 min and 18.6 seconds.

But it still looks like a GT-R:
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
Did you see their marketing spin?

Though production of the GT-R is tightly controlled, U.S. sales are forecast to rise 24 percent to about 1,440 ...
Why are tight controls needed when ...

Sales of the car have dropped 12 percent to 1,054 this year through October.
And with the US it's largest market, there just aren't many being produced, period. It will be interesting to see if they can actually increase sales 24% by adding 15 HP. I'm certainly not their target customer, but will 25% more folks look at the article and say, "WOW! 15 more HP!! Gotta get me one of them today!"

That said, yes, the 2.7 0-60 is very impressive.
 
#5 ·
Part of the reason we buy these cars is because of the styling (OK Longtimer...no C7/Camaro tail light comments :laughing: ). I mentioned in a previous post I finally saw one of these at Mid-Ohio this year. The GT-R looks like it should be sitting next to a Civic or a Camry in a sales lot. It is just one boring looking car. Fast, but very bland. The go-fast engineers get an A+, but the styling engineers must have let the interns work on this one.
 
#6 ·
GT-R prices have risen significantly with only minor changes to the car.

 
#8 ·
They probably priced the car originally expecting to sell 10k-15k units per year (or more?), but the real demand required ever increasing pricing to cover the higher costs of such low volume. We call that Viper-itis.
 
#7 ·
They have been optimizing the car and I think its impressive with how much they have been able to do with that car. Consider that it is a nose heavy car at 53/47 and it comes in at 3,829 pounds its not a light car.

Really the computer controlled AWD system and the 7 speed DSG really save this car. Take away the computer controls for the AWD system and replace the DSG with a traditional manual gearbox and this car would suck badly. It amounts to a slightly less nose heavy Mustang GT500 with less power (but better suspension design).

Also edmund's inside line did lap the Z06 faster around a track then the 2013 Nissan GTR and Nissan GTR fans were upset. How can this American built leaf springed plastic fantastic be able to out lap the greatest thing in the auto world?. Not all is what it seems.....
 
#9 ·
They control production to keep pricing high. The Vett will not come close to the 0-60 time. I suspect the Ring time will be close on the base Vett and the Z's should be better. The reason I say that is because GM has supposedly focused on the dynamics of the car so much. The zl1 did it in 7:41 and that was in a heavier car whith a chasis that wasn't really designed for it.
The C7 should be only slightly worse in hp/lb than the Zl1 and the latest gen MRC and PTMS can improve the car quite a bit. I would think the base car with MRC should be good for a ring time at least in the 7:25-7:35 range.
 
#10 ·
They control production to keep pricing high.
So you're saying they are turning people away at the showroom because they are "controlling production," yet sales in their biggest market (the US) dropped 12%. Sorry not buying that. It's lusted after by a demographic that does not have the $$ to buy it in volumes Nissan had anticipated - or when it's time to sign on the line, they choose to buy something else. Regardless, it's a great halo car for their engineering reputation.

I completely agree with the rest of your post. Without tubbing and 15" slicks, the front mid / rear drive Corvette can never match the 0-60 times of even some lesser HP rear, rear-mid engine, or AWD cars. The weight behind the driver is a traction advantage that only four traction patches can match or exceed. It's just physics and execution.
 
#13 ·
Personally, I think the hype for the GT-R is gone, as well as the "gotta have it" factor. The car has gone relatively unchanged, yet has gone up nearly $40,000. Yikes.
 
#15 ·
I recently purchased a 2013 GT-R, as I've never had one and thought it might be interesting, and with Blizzak tires, usable as a winter-beater. Driving AWD cars with some power in snow is about as fun as anything!

The GT-R's weak sales are a function of alot of things, I think, including

-alot of misleading hype and spin piled around the car by Nissan, which puts off alot of people
-almost total lack of recognition on the road, nobody knows what it is when I drive it, its as invisible on the road as a regular old nice car.
-alot of concern and hype around Nissan warranty voiding and other shady practices
-lets be real, while the car is very interesting to look at and striking by itself, when surrounded with other supercars its plain boring to look at.

Its performance is nothing mysterious, in a straight line that wild 0-60 time is a function of extremely low gearing and AWD grip and a very very well sorted launch control function. Its the low gearing that makes it fast.

It feels no faster than a C6 Z06 from, say, 35 mph or so assuming that the C6Z then hooks up. But a C6 Z06 on the street has no grip all too often.

As for lap times, its generally good performances are a function of very sticky tires - the OEM tires throw debris at the car just like R compound tires, very very stiff suspension, and a well sorted AWD system. But keep in mind that once the Z06 got sticky tires, it has generally beat the GT-R in most all comparisons for lap times. Lightning lap, Nurburgring (despite the GT-R getting far, far more practice at the 'ring), Motor Trends Best Drivers Car (a pretty bad beating there), and on and on and on.

The GT-R has never been a miracle of performance, and all wheel drive is not necessarily a miraculous contributor to lap times. The GT-R is very cleverly engineered, using extremely low gearing for a car in this category to jerk its heavy self off the line at an amazing rate, then that dual-clutch tranny to shift through those very tight first-3 gears without slowing the cars acceleration or having it go off boost during shifts.

And its a greatly fun car to drive, nowhere near as hairy and scary as a C6Z, but also not as buttoned down and predictable as an lp560-4. And using the launch control is a complete blast, just a ton of fun. I launch it all the time and then check what my max forward acceleration g-force was.
 
#16 ·
With respect to the price, it is my strong belief that the original $70k price-tag of the GT-R was never sustainable, they were selling at a loss there.

The GT-R has alot of parts, a motor that probably costs alot to make relative to an LS7 for similar output. An expensive transmission, a unique interior that doesn't share parts, 3900 pounds of stuff, 2 drive shafts, 2 differentials, 4 half-shafts, a more expensive marketing-based-testing program than probably any other car extant (how much time do they spend trying to work down those 'ring laps), and so on. All amortized over very few sales. Z06's and ZR1's and GT3s and 911 Turbos get to share a ton of parts with higher volume stablemates, which must help with their costs quite a bit.

I would think that at around $110k the pricing is approaching sustainability? Or maybe it needs to go a little higher yet.
 
#17 ·
I was very bored after waking up early this morning so I read some insideline, I found this:

http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet...2013-nissan-gt-r-premium-comparison-test.html

The Z06 beat the GT-R at most everything, slalom, lap time, ... except straight line acceleration. The GT-R had brake fade on the track, the Z06 didn't.

Nissan made the 'ring time and lap times so famous in peoples minds, and in a strange twist of irony, they have created a monster for themselves by doing so. The GT-R platform is matchless at 0-60 acceleration. Low gearing + AWD + instant DCT upshifts, it can't be matched except by another car (say a 911 Turbo) set up similarly or perhaps by some hypercar. Maybe they should have stuck to old fashioned 0-60 marketing? Time will tell.

Its nice to read someone else experiencing snap oversteer in the GT-R, I was starting to wonder if I was somehow driving it like a crazy person. Apparently for 2012/2013 its gotten "lively"
 
#21 ·
I love the GTR, my only gripe about the GTR is what it promotes in the automotive world.

If you take away all of the electronics that makes the performance of the car possible such as the AWD system (ATTESA E-TS) and the duel clutch automated manual gear box its really an under powered Ford Shelby GT500.

If Ford took their 662BHP GT500 and installed a dynamic AWD system and replaced the transmission with a DCT it would have much of the same result (the GTR has had a ton of work in optimizing the aerodynamics and suspension tuning). Cars like the C6 Z06 just may go extinct in favor of cars like the Nissan GTR, cars like the Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS may not be possible in such a market. I am glad that the C7 will remain RWD and that they are focused on reducing the weight of the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreamcars99
#22 ·
That was really well said. A RWD GT-R with a stick shift would be a hopeless mess.

The car really is based around AWD and the DCT, without either of those it wouldn't work very well. Those two make it possible to use very low gearing in first gear (which is the reason its so fast 0-60)... But they result in a heavy car that I believe is rather front-weight-biased. Which leads to the need for the very stiff springs, etc etc.

Its influence over the car world has been huge, it will push 911's away from their 911ness and towards mid engine easy to drive cars. It will pressure everybody to make cars more controllable...

But another factor here is just how plain powerful cars have gotten. 600hp is not too rare these days, and the power race doesn't seem to be ending. A whole lot easier to control a 300hp car without a computer than a 600hp car.
 
#23 ·
It sin't just the AWD system, there have been plenty of cars with AWD and the understeer (though not as bad as FWD cars).

Its the computer system, its AWD system has its own ECO and can split the power between 50:50 to 2:98 and split the torque between both rear wheels. The computer on the AWD system does a lot of work and it all works very well together. To the point where its specs on a spec sheet isn't that impressive in the performance world and yet its faster then cars that it shouldn't be faster then.

There have been suggestions that the Nissan GTR was under rated from the factory. That when it first came out with a 480BHP rating that it was producing a good amount more then that. Now for 2013 it has a 545BHP rating and the car has been tweaked and improved on every single year in a major way. Its rating went from 480BHP to 485BHP after that to 530BHP and now 545BHP where it stands. Also the car has had its suspension retuned pretty much every year that its been in production. The car has actually gotten both longer and wider since it came out, as a vehicle program its a model IMHO to what every car maker should do to its performance car.

Just think, the 2012 C6 Z06 ran a 7:22 on the ring.... if GM did what Nissan did they car would have its suspension tuning changed for 2013 and it would run something like a 7:18.... then for 2014....
 
#33 ·
I hear you, if GM kept working on the ring times, they would no doub tcome down. Shoot, a shorter 5th gear would have knocked 1-2 seconds off that lap. If you watch the GT-Rs 7:24 lap and then the Z06's 7:22 lap, its striking how perfect the GT-Rs lap is driven, and how the Z06's has a couple flubs and such.

And don't get me wrong, 100% of the Corvette fans who have complained that they have a mere "engineer" driving their cars at the 'ring are wrong. Mero drives like man, anybody, its just clear that whoever drives the GT-R had alot more tries than Mero did. Alot more. I can't imagine Nissans budget for 'ring marketing laps, its got to be stratospheric.

The GT-Rs setup is brilliant, and its AWD system is incredible, but ultimately that AWD system is worth more in a straight line than it is in the track-lap-time tests that have come into vogue in the last few years. Zero-shift times + AWD + low gearing lead ot better 0-60 times (and often carrying into the 1/4 mile) than can probably be had with a RWD car, at least a front engine RWD car. But the C6 has fairly well mopped the floor with the GT-R in lap time tests since the C6 got some properly good tires.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the C7, in Z51 or Gran Sport trim, the base C7, will be pretty competitive with the GT-R for lap times, provided they offer good tires on that trim. It has no chance of beating the GT-R 0-60.

The AWD, short gearing, DCT combo is ultimately more powerful in a straight line than it is on a track. :)
 
#24 ·
Funny how every six cylinder supercar needs forced induction to hang with a small block V8. Take the blower off and what do you have?

I get into these debates with tuner fans who dismiss a V8 as a tool of a simpleminded *******. To that I ask them how many Ferraris were built with a V6? I rest my case.


Sent from my iPhone using AG Free
 
#25 ·
People get caught up in the semantics of the whole thing, if you need 6.0L of volume to make the power that you want then you need 6.0L of volume. It doesn't matter if its a 6.0L V-12, a 6.0L V-8, or a 6.0L V-6. However a 6.0L V-6 isn't that practical so its easier to make a 3.5L V-6 (or in the case of the GTR 3.8L V-6) and make up the rest with a supercharger or a turbo charger the 2.2-2.5L. Really one should look at the lightest, most compact, and most efficient way to do that.

There are inherent benefits of going with a factory turbocharged motor, the last Supra engine has shown itself to be capable of handling 700+BHP with the stock bottom end. You can probably get the 3.8L V-6 engine to 700BHP easier then you can the 7.0L LS7. Though any extreme power levels requires that the motor be fully built in any case.

It is true that there are some red necks that love big American V-8s, however what is happening here is simple. They are choosing to use a small part of the fan base to paint everyone in that group. This also happens on this site toward people who prefer Japanese or European performance cars.

I personally think its silly to limit yourself by choice to one type of vehicle or another. If every car was built the same exact way, lets say front engine RWD and V-8 power then there would be nothing at all special about the Corvette. Its the variety and the difference that makes the Corvette what it is, I also have respect for all of the car companies who go about building a car in a different way to reach the same goal. The Gumpert Apollo is a turbocharged V-8 mid engine RWD car and it ran the ring in 7:11.57. The ACR Viper is a front engine RWD V-10 powered car and it ran it in 7:12.13, the LExus LFA is also a V-10 front engine RWD car however a super high revving engine and DCT transmission and it ran 7:14.64. The 911 GT2 RS is a flat 6 TT rear engine RWD car that ran it in 7:18.0 and the ZR1 a supercharged front engine RWD V-8 powered car that ran it in 7:1963.

Actually I find it interesting how people try to talk as if AWD TT V-6 is the way of the future due to its impressive performance. Not one of those cars is AWD......
 
#26 ·
It should never be a discussion of numbers on paper. In the real world, it's all about torque and available torque at RPM and that is why the V-8 is so great. It offers copious amounts of torque right off of 1000rpm. So you don't have to shift if you don't want to... engine flexibility makes for a great driving experience... many of these engines that have great stats, don't have any power unless they downshift two gears and the beauty of the V8 is that you don't really have to...you just "think it" and it happens.... and the V-8 OHV is the most compact and lightest architecture out there... and as for fuel economy, i can easily get 35 MPG out of my LS3, because there is no huge parasitic overhead in spinning all that extra bullshit that makes more power ( but only at 7000+ rpm )
 
#30 ·
Yeah but the point is that a 6 cylinder NEEDS boost in order to hang with an NA V8. Look at the history:

A 911 NEEDS boost to hang with a C4.
A Supra NEEDS boost to hang with a C5.
A GT-R NEEDS boost to hang with a C6.

...and what happens when you spray a tiny bit of NOS in a Corvette? All those turbos are far in the rear view mirror...

'There is no replacement for displacement' isn't just an anecdote. It's a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using AG Free
 
#28 ·
that's when the turbo kicks in, the power comes on... i used to own a 1987 Buick Grand National... and WHEN it came.. on... boy did it... but not progressive power... more like a swell.... i know that they came a long way in addressing lag... but i like normal aspriation.
 
#29 ·
I was just going to say, they came a long way in handling lag to the point where its non existent (depending on application).

Don't get me wrong, I also prefer normal aspiration when it comes to V-8 engines. The reality is simple though, with the strides that have been made in turbocharging technology they can produce turbocharge engines that act like normally aspirated engines.

By the way there is talk that Buick might get a new Grand National, built on the Alpha platform and packing a 425BHP 3.6L TT V-6 engine.
 
#35 ·
I;ll offer this about the 2013 GT-R, it doesn't drive like a robot, its a ton of fun to drive. I challenge anybody to drive one for 2 weeks and then come back and say "wow that car just is lame, i mean its fast, but its lame", its a very interesting and fun car to drive.

And one thing I really appreciate about it is that, while its hardly a perfect design, in looks, in interior, in whatever, they obviously put alot of care into it. You do not have

-a parts bin Cobalt steering wheel and Pontiac NAV screen (vette)
-lame seats (vette_
-a parts bin $5 worst-ever-in-a-car-since-the-70's radio (f430)
-a parts bin Audi A4 infotainment system (lp560) with, by the way, 2 speakers, total.

As far as I can tell, the car is a unique piece, unique unto itself, and that is pretty dang cool.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top