You don't understand that HVS has previous seat time ON THE RING in the GT-R and none in the ZR-1? Or did you just leave that part out because you had no response to it? Not to mention HVS's name was mentioned in the list of drivers that had been hired to test for Nissan when they were shooting for lap times. Seat time mean anything to you? Or did you instantly choose not to address it?

You sound like you are trying to make yourself seem like an forum super hero.

0-60 means NOTHING! That is all in the launch. If you were so smart, you'd know that.

 

So then make your declaration.

I, Heavychevy, claims the ZR-1 and the GTR have the exact same time because HvS has more seat time in the GTR.....

This is what you are saying. Would you like to stick to it before we move any further?

 

Declaration? In the midst of all the ignorance I've seen today, this has to take the cake. I clearly said in two consecutive posts, the exact same thing, then you turn around and ask for a declaration. Not to mention reducing everything I said to ONE point.

Do you really take yourself that seriously? Mister superhero?


I swear!


Oh and need I remind you that Chris Harris drove a PRODUCTION GT-R and the GT2 on the same day and beat the GT-R by 7 seconds, and Horst beat the GT-R by 5 seconds. That's pretty consistent too. I have yet to see a test where the GT2 beat the ZR-1 on a track other than this one. I have seen Horst drive a Z06 inconsistently, and a Viper to one aweful nearly impossible time. So what conclusion is there to draw from all of this? Seems the only consistent here is that Horst is slow in high hp American Cars. Wanna Bet he doesn't beat the GT2 with an ACR by much IF at all if they supertest it?

 

Does it not also make anyone scratch their head that HVS beat the GT-R by one whole second on the Hockenheim Circuit which is only a little over a 1 minute lap? And yet trying to insist the cars are the same speed and Horst drove them both to the same lengths.

And the GT-R is as difficult to drive at any point?

Guess the Hockenheim time doesn't count...........

You guys make me laugh!

 

Only someone that is a complete (fill in the blank) would compare the R32 ATTESSA-ETS to the R35 system. I don't even want to begin and since you don't know the difference its a waste of time talking to you about it. You know what Quattro and ATTESSA-ETS share quite a few things in common too.

You can't attack me because I ALREADY AGREED THAT THE GTR RAN A 7:38....

 

I'm curious as to who said this that your asking this on here...

Was the Hockenheim time ever doubted by the same people who doubted the 7:38 'Ring time claim by Nissan?

I figured that we'd all expect the ZR-1 to have better laptimes from similar drivers with similar experience (high HP, low weight, RWD platform).

I also thought we'd throw out the GT-R's time when compared to the ZR-1 on the wet track as well...

 

No, I am trying to preserve the crux of the matter in the face of your many rambling tangents. You are a fraud and it shows in your defensiveness, whenever I draw your logic to its ultimate conclusions. We are talking about the Supertest. Which is the most through and comprehensive of all test. Stop running to other test to extrapolate baseless conclusions. I vividly remember the days of the 200 page "Porches accuses Nissan of cheating" thread. You were always harping on the release of the Supertest and how the GTR could not hang with lighter more powerful cars on the back straight. Well now that we see the GTR doesn’t hang with the ZR-1 on the back straight and still runs the same time. You are now forced to make new excuses about production models and seat time. You constantly reinvent your points and dance through rings of fire to deny the obvious. You are the ONLY one left here still making excuses. All the others had enough self respect and humility to concede.

Don’t respond to this post with your usual unrelated babble either. Stay focused or
bow before....

GT-R: 7:38
ZR-1: 7:38
FACTS!

 

This is really interesting , and I am confused.....again what is the title of this thread and what is the topic of our discussion?

Talking about tangents of all the GTR threads I have talked in and been negative repped at least 10 times for, its the GTR brigade that is been on the tangents......or maybe I am wrong?

 

Well considering half the thread was about 'Understeer' that should tell you enough about Heavy's methods of debate. It is very telling that Monaro exiled himself until significantly faster times come out for the ZR-1. It was the smartest thing he could have done. Heavy is still here though, with nothing left to stand on but inapplicable tangents.


GT-R: 7:38
ZR-1: 7:38

Let us dwell in the house of facts....

 

There has never been any progress made in these Corvette, Porsche, GTR debates. I will simply say that most people cant drive for **** so it doesn't matter which one you pick. YOU WILL STILL BE SLOWER THAN ME !

 

germeezy - I'm the one that introduced the ZR-1 for comparison.

Up until now - many (especially on here) cried foul about the GT-R running a 7:38 (claiming Nissan cheated, raised the boost, used a ringer, used cut slicks/R-comps - even though there wasn't a 20" R-comp out then).

When Porsche ran the lap - they tried to convince how poor the Nissan GT-R really was when ran in 'stock/production form'.

When Sport Auto conducted the Supertest - they disproved Porsche's theory, and it became more obvious that Porsche did what any threatened car manufacturer would do.

Anyway - moving onto what the GT-R was really capable of (in the right hands), and seriously poking a BIG hole in Porsche's theory - Nissan ran a 7:27, and then a 7:26.

Well, nobody seemed caught off-guard when the ZR-1 ran a 7:26 (including me). It is an amazing machine with performance that can rival the world's best.

Well - the rest was simple math.

ZR-1 7:26 (with their driver)
GT-R 7:26 (with their driver)

HvS ZR-1/GT-R - 7:38/7:38

Then the two are quite comparable around this track.

Basically - if HvS can acheive the same result with both cars, and Nissan & Chevy can acheive the same result in each car - that means that Porsche is off on their assessment even further - and should just sit in the corner with their inappropriate comments.

 

Not true about the R comps brother. 20" R compound tires have been out a long time. Pirrelli Corsas and Michillene Sport cups are only two of the many that were available.

 

My wife would say the same thing about every car she's lined up with...

Including a Z06, SL65 w/et streets, Shelby GT500, etc...

At this point - it all comes down to the personal preference of the driver, along with the ability of the driver in THAT car. All of these cars are great. What is the big deal if car 'A' turns a better lap in driver 'X's hands? Who really cares? People who read magazines.

I know what I'm capable of (and learning more and more) in my car, and I have fun (even though my transmission overheats in 5minutes, and my warranty makes my blinkers explode, and my super secret VDC button makes the brakes lock up and fluid boil).

 

I support my sports car of choice with my wallet I encourage you guys to do the same. After I heard that the GTR is faster in a straight line than the Millenium Falcon and corners like a bullet train I just wanted to know if I bought the wrong car. I hope that Nissan didn't have to bribe the devil to avoid the laws of physics.

 

After 3 years of HPDE events and racing TTU in my vette, I honestly believe that I could post a faster lap than most people here in a Miata .

I also believe in supporting the car of your choice with your wallet. It makes things interesting. Single make racing is BORING!