GM Strikes Back - Corvette ZR1 Laps the 'Ring in 7:26.4
#201
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Again your quoting an article and only using what you want to use and not the whole story.
Article you previously posted...
And then this is what your writing immediately following...
I think your the one not understanding the article or are interpreting it how you see fit. You can't just pick and chose bits and pieces of articles and ignore what you don't like. You either take an article for being accurate or disregard it for being junk.
Again this isn't unheard of in the industry, it's done quite often so your beating a dead horse here. Nissan apparently did it, as has GM and Ford and Toyota and whoever else you want to include. Hell the whole LS line of engines has been observed to be underrated...does that mean that all F-bodies ever produced weren't stock? Are we all buying souped up race cars and we don't know about it? NO we aren't, were all buying stock cars as proclaimed by the auto manufacturer. And the term STOCK has nothing to do with certified SAE numbers at all. Stock refers to the condition of a car as it leaves the factory floor in OEM trim.
There's a whole crap load of reasons, and am surprised that even you are bringing that up! Tony Swan ran a 12.8 at OLOA...what does that tell you? Driver mod, elevations, temperature, DA, gas used, track prep, engine wear, experience(as stated by the GTR owners who had only been the the track twice in his life) etc... you should really not be bitching about .1 of a second and 3mph when you know just as well as I do that cars drive differently in different climates and different tracks. There's a few guys that are running .5 - .7 of a second faster at a track down in texas (RVG) than they are in their own track in Odessa texas 10 hours away with only minor differences in set up.
GM actively monitors the message boards/forums and I'm sure have followed alot of the online debate between these two cars and others as well and were absolutely right to be as forthcoming as they were, you are absolutely right there!
Explain please, I'm not following.
Article you previously posted...
The R&T editors discuss the provenance of the GTRs used in testing. Nissan provided 3 GTRs for testing to the automotive press. A white, a silver, and a Black one. The black one was damaged somehow and was kept in reserve for parts. All three cars are US spec, but are definitely pre-production, and are classified as "engineering test cars", which is the only way they are legal for registration and operation on US roads. Once their lifecycle is done (90 days), they go to the crusher. This explains the caveats by C&D, and MT regarding the performance, and the extraordinary dyno result produced by the silver car.
The cars that were first sent to all the media outlets seem to be faster than the ones being tested recently. ( 11.7? @ 125 from the MEDIA is nowhere near the 11.8 @ 122 from the real world, not magazine writers driving.) Go compare the mags time with the Z vs. real world times and they are much faster. But it looks like the reverse is true for the GTR.
Explain please, I'm not following.
#203
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Steve Millen answers questions regarding the GTR:
Shinkaze: Mr. Millen when you drove Road and Tracks test, you got a 1:56 for the gtr and a 2:01 for the ZO6.
Millen: Thats right
Shinkaze: Car and Driver were unable to get that time, also their 1/4 mile times were significatly slower. Do you have a theory on why their times are off your times?
Millen: You know i saw the magazine just today. Their time in the ZO6 was similar in time to what i did, but the gtr time was much slower. I am curious about that because the time is the time. We timed it with a gps system to. I got a number of laps at 1:56 with the gtr. Maybe Car and Driver didn't know how to make best use of the turbochargers and 4wd and all that. They didn't take the car as quick as it can go around Buttonwillow. It was the exact same track config. that i drove around to so i was really surprised by that.
Shinkaze: One of the theories that's been put out there. Is that the Car and Driver car was on 91 octane and maybe your car was on race gas, putting the car on a more conservative fuel map, do you think there's some possibility in that the car isn't seeing as much hp on 91 octane?
Millen: I don't think so and i'll tell you why. I did another test recently with Road and Track magazine which is going to come out soon, probably within the next month. And we went to Willow Springs, we went to the big track at willow and went to the streets of willow the next day. And i drove a bunch of different sports cars, i think there was about 12 cars there, um and again the gtr was quite a bit quicker than the ZO6 and the Porsche um GT2.
Shinkaze: Quicker than the gt2, the standard gtr is quicker than the gt2?
Millen: Yes it was. You will see the test come out real soon. The gtr wasn't actually the quickest car in the test, there were 2 cars quicker. But you will have to wait till you see Road and Track magazine when it comes out. Did a real good time with the Viper ACR. Which is a very quick car especially on the Michelin tires. Somehow they didn't get all you can get out of the gtr at Buttonwillow. You know alot of people are misleaded about the gtr and they say how its easy to drive, and it is, it's very easy to drive upto about 80 or 90%, when you really wanna start pushing that car it's going to start slipping and sliding around on you, it's natural. Any car if your going really quick your sliding and moving the car. People getting really secure in the car and think there going quick, but you can go alot quicker.
Shinkaze: So the final question and this is the one that sets message boards aflame, is 7:29 on the Nurburgring achievable with this vehicle?
Millen: It was done, so ya know
Shinkaze: The message boards say oh the car it's a ringer, it's tweaked out, it's a vspec or something crazy. In your professional experience given what other cars have achieved, do you think it's achievable.
Millen: I believe the new ZR1 has gone around in 7:27, so i think that kinds of puts this in perspective. The most amazing thing about the gtr when i first drove it, was i couldn't believe how well it did everything, cornering and accelerating and so on. And at that time i said, if i was going to do a long distance race in a production car, this is the car i would want to do it in, cause you can do it lap after lap after lap. And you can use the curbs you can really use alot of the track were other cars you can't.
Shinkaze: So what about the people that complain about the 3800 lbs, it's rated at less than 500 hp, close to 500 just a little bit less, and yet the numbers it achieves at that weight and that power are just ridiculous. What do you think the magic is?
Millen: If you look at the acceleration times, like in the Road and Track test that we did, it wasn't the quickest accelerating, infact the corvette was quicker on the straightaways on the long straightaways it was faster. Cause it's alot lighter car. It's all about getting into the corners and through them and out of them, and the momentum you can carry with the gtr is amazing, thats were your getting it. That's why the cars so quick.
Shinkaze: Mr. Millen thank you very much for answering my questions.
Shinkaze: Mr. Millen when you drove Road and Tracks test, you got a 1:56 for the gtr and a 2:01 for the ZO6.
Millen: Thats right
Shinkaze: Car and Driver were unable to get that time, also their 1/4 mile times were significatly slower. Do you have a theory on why their times are off your times?
Millen: You know i saw the magazine just today. Their time in the ZO6 was similar in time to what i did, but the gtr time was much slower. I am curious about that because the time is the time. We timed it with a gps system to. I got a number of laps at 1:56 with the gtr. Maybe Car and Driver didn't know how to make best use of the turbochargers and 4wd and all that. They didn't take the car as quick as it can go around Buttonwillow. It was the exact same track config. that i drove around to so i was really surprised by that.
Shinkaze: One of the theories that's been put out there. Is that the Car and Driver car was on 91 octane and maybe your car was on race gas, putting the car on a more conservative fuel map, do you think there's some possibility in that the car isn't seeing as much hp on 91 octane?
Millen: I don't think so and i'll tell you why. I did another test recently with Road and Track magazine which is going to come out soon, probably within the next month. And we went to Willow Springs, we went to the big track at willow and went to the streets of willow the next day. And i drove a bunch of different sports cars, i think there was about 12 cars there, um and again the gtr was quite a bit quicker than the ZO6 and the Porsche um GT2.
Shinkaze: Quicker than the gt2, the standard gtr is quicker than the gt2?
Millen: Yes it was. You will see the test come out real soon. The gtr wasn't actually the quickest car in the test, there were 2 cars quicker. But you will have to wait till you see Road and Track magazine when it comes out. Did a real good time with the Viper ACR. Which is a very quick car especially on the Michelin tires. Somehow they didn't get all you can get out of the gtr at Buttonwillow. You know alot of people are misleaded about the gtr and they say how its easy to drive, and it is, it's very easy to drive upto about 80 or 90%, when you really wanna start pushing that car it's going to start slipping and sliding around on you, it's natural. Any car if your going really quick your sliding and moving the car. People getting really secure in the car and think there going quick, but you can go alot quicker.
Shinkaze: So the final question and this is the one that sets message boards aflame, is 7:29 on the Nurburgring achievable with this vehicle?
Millen: It was done, so ya know
Shinkaze: The message boards say oh the car it's a ringer, it's tweaked out, it's a vspec or something crazy. In your professional experience given what other cars have achieved, do you think it's achievable.
Millen: I believe the new ZR1 has gone around in 7:27, so i think that kinds of puts this in perspective. The most amazing thing about the gtr when i first drove it, was i couldn't believe how well it did everything, cornering and accelerating and so on. And at that time i said, if i was going to do a long distance race in a production car, this is the car i would want to do it in, cause you can do it lap after lap after lap. And you can use the curbs you can really use alot of the track were other cars you can't.
Shinkaze: So what about the people that complain about the 3800 lbs, it's rated at less than 500 hp, close to 500 just a little bit less, and yet the numbers it achieves at that weight and that power are just ridiculous. What do you think the magic is?
Millen: If you look at the acceleration times, like in the Road and Track test that we did, it wasn't the quickest accelerating, infact the corvette was quicker on the straightaways on the long straightaways it was faster. Cause it's alot lighter car. It's all about getting into the corners and through them and out of them, and the momentum you can carry with the gtr is amazing, thats were your getting it. That's why the cars so quick.
Shinkaze: Mr. Millen thank you very much for answering my questions.
![](http://www.photodump.org/stored22/blehraewr.jpg)
It is a sad story because another car magazine bites the dust and does a totally biased review by having a test driver that was and is currently heavily involved with Nissan:
Steve Millen's company web site:
http://www.stillen.com/
http://www.stillen.com/news.asp?id=86
If that is not a Nissan shop, then nothing is.
More: guess who instructed the journalists when Nissan presented the GTR at Reno-Fernley raceway in Nevada?
"Steve Millen, veteran race driver and instructor of journalists gathered to sample the 2009 Nissan GT-R"
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2...ud-be-dead-now
Yes, Road & Track has picked a very impartial driver, right...
Check out the lap times from the AFM round on the same Buttonwillow track config used for the GTR/Z06/911 test:
http://www.afmracing.org/downloads/r...8/bw-0308.html
Best times by the fastest riders were in the 1:45 - 1:46 range.
Still, 1:56 for the GTR is hauling butt (don't forget though that the car times were by a veteran track driver way more skilled than you or I).
Maybe, just maybe since he is on Nissans payroll he sandbaged just a tad on the Z on Willow.
#204
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Can you verify the Z06's time? Thats all I want to know. Other than someones claim, I want to see the video of the Z06.
Was the Zonda stock? Was Porsche 911 stock? How bout the ZR1?
How is that the ZR1 laps the ring faster than the Koenigsegg CC, which weighs almost 600lbs less and makes more power? Yet everyone wants to discredit the GTR's times
.
Was the Zonda stock? Was Porsche 911 stock? How bout the ZR1?
How is that the ZR1 laps the ring faster than the Koenigsegg CC, which weighs almost 600lbs less and makes more power? Yet everyone wants to discredit the GTR's times
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
What I am saying is do you see anybody or any magazine calling any kind of discrepencies on the Z's time? NO! Only a few people on here.
Do you see anybody or any magazines calling any kind of discepencies on the GTR time? Yes you do. That is the whole point. There are way to many "Buts" with the GTR time.
Now I have posted in the last thread that was deleted a verbatim quote from Jan himself. SO far we have this for the Z:
Tadge saying it does a standing start.
Jan saying it does a standing start ( I posted his entire quote from the article)
Shoemacker-Standing start
Webster-Standing start
The magazine that was there that day-Standing start.
On the other side, can anybody find any post from anyone, not Joe down at the bar told me this, but form any magazine or any other credible source?
Since the answwer is obviously no the the proof lies on your side to find at least one descepency with the Z's time.
Now if your opinion is that if there is no video then no time should be counted, then that would leave like 5 or times that you could say are offical for the ring. Hell even the CGT time is not an official time as noby seem it even run a timed lap.
See what iI mean:
Aparently Nissan used production tires, and the ring is NOW ran with a flying start and an incomplete lap. HOWEVER it's still unceratin what other modifications Nissan did with the car.
The previous aparently stock R33 GTR that did a 7:59 as tested by Autocar (for Nissan) was only able to achieve a best of 8:28 when again tested by Autocar (this time a production model). This car used standard tires and had the obvious stuff kept standard. Sneaky things like computer setting, boost levels, slight suspension changes, and removal of road restrictions including limiter were removed
PREVIOUS BOGUS NISSAN NURBURGRING TIME
The (Nissan GTR time of) 7:59 was set by Nissan test driver Dirk Schoysman, and that was the number subsequently used in Nissan literature promoting the GTR. Autocar did in fact test a Skyline rated at 277 hp in 1997 at the 'Ring, but recorded only an 8:28. There were 3 other cars tested in that session (Ruf CTR 2, Caterham 7 Superlight, and Porsche 996). Two months prior to that test, TopGear attempted to meet the Nissan figure using none other than Dirk Schoysman as one of their guest test drivers. The best he could do on that occasion was an 8:37 in a 350-hp VSpec GTR. 3 other cars were faster in that session: E36 M3 Evo, NSX, and F355.
Here is the video on a Suby running with a standing start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPXZGmfS9c
Now the ZR1. Again nobody knows with 100% certainty if it was bone stone.
What we know:
Tadge stated in both print and video that this car was a showroom car power and suspension wise.
GM-Laid out exactly how the car was to be tested and the layout of the car.
Now can you find anybody or any magazine that are calling into question the ZR1 tim at the Ring? If you can't again the ***** in your court to find some type of descepency for it's time, power ect.
So unless there are some sources calling BS or alluding to the fact the both Vettes were somehow over par witht he US spec cars then you are reaching.
#205
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I wasn't there myself and I'm also saying it is stock too solely based on reading and listening to what the drivers on BOTH sides are saying. I'm just regurgitation information provided by the actual participants. If in your opinion you believe the GTR isn't stock and provide reasons then that's fine, and I won't argue against that but if your claiming it isn't stock as factual than that is different because that's misinformation.
The argument was never that there weren't any stock C6Z06's in the race but that the GTR couldn't beat a stock C6Z06. That was the original discussion, not the other way around. And the final standings show that the GTR "was also good enough to finish ahead of ALL the naturally aspirated Z06 Corvettes", Stock and modified. Were there any stock Z06's, yeah apparently there were. Were they able to beat the GTR in the finals standings? No they weren't...however;
The whole problem I have with the GTR and Nissan is this: If they would have just came out and said what the actual figures are then I would not say a word. Since I think they are way over the stock HP cliam, they want everybody to think that a car with less HP/TQ and more weight can kick the Z's ***. That's the problem I have. it's not grapes to grapes.
It isn't unheard of and almost become routine that car manufacturer's will underrate some of their cars, most all of them have done it and most all of them will continue to do so. Does that mean the car isn't stock? No it doesn't. My bone-stock Typhoon was rated at 295hp from the factory yet made 278awhp on a dyno. Does that mean it wasn't stock, no it means it was underrated and the crank hp is closer to 330 as most in the know seem to believe.
I would think Nissan has done the same thing, they claim it's 480hp I tend to think they underrated it and it is closer to 520 or there abouts(maybe more, who knows). Does that mean that it isn't stock? No it doesn't, it means Nissan like GM, Ford, etc... have in the past, has underrated their car for insurance reasons or what have you. If you want to claim Nissan are liars than please include every other car brand that is guilty of it. Fair is fair
I would think Nissan has done the same thing, they claim it's 480hp I tend to think they underrated it and it is closer to 520 or there abouts(maybe more, who knows). Does that mean that it isn't stock? No it doesn't, it means Nissan like GM, Ford, etc... have in the past, has underrated their car for insurance reasons or what have you. If you want to claim Nissan are liars than please include every other car brand that is guilty of it. Fair is fair
The difference here is that Nissan is claiming Xhp and it really might be a lot more. They are racing it when it might not be on the mark HP wise. Again if they would just come out and say that this car in OLOA has Xhp then this would all go away. That's like if you and I have roughly the same cars HP wise But I continually beat you when I should not be beating you then all of a sudden you find that I have a 100 shot when I told you I was making Xhp, just a little less than you. Since I did not volunteer that inof how would you feel?
Originally Posted by Suaveat69
I guess your not understanding what they are trying to relay: The car is not US spec...
I think your the one not understanding the article or are interpreting it how you see fit. You can't just pick and chose bits and pieces of articles and ignore what you don't like. You either take an article for being accurate or disregard it for being junk.
I guess your not understanding what they are trying to relay: The car is not US spec...
I think your the one not understanding the article or are interpreting it how you see fit. You can't just pick and chose bits and pieces of articles and ignore what you don't like. You either take an article for being accurate or disregard it for being junk.
There's a whole crap load of reasons, and am surprised that even you are bringing that up! Tony Swan ran a 12.8 at OLOA...what does that tell you? Driver mod, elevations, temperature, DA, gas used, track prep, engine wear, experience(as stated by the GTR owners who had only been the the track twice in his life) etc... you should really not be bitching about .1 of a second and 3mph when you know just as well as I do that cars drive differently in different climates and different tracks. There's a few guys that are running .5 - .7 of a second faster at a track down in texas (RVG) than they are in their own track in Odessa texas 10 hours away with only minor differences in set up.
Would not want to see how someone else tested and then did the exact oppozsite just so you can claim a better time
Explain please, I'm not following
Explain please, I'm not following
BWright:
Prior to the GT-R's run no manufacturer had filmed one of theirs for proof. Not one. What Nissan did was to basically call everyone out for proof. Prior to that everyone had been performing Ring runs essentially on the honor system with no standardization. The variables of standing, rolling, partial and full laps not to mention aggregated segment times run on different days/times were all used/combined by various manufacturers such that essentially no two competing runs were really comparable. There is even an interview with Porsche test driver Walter Rohrl where he says that running the Ring with the CGT was so dangerous that he suggested Porsche make up a time.
So when GM waded into this standards morass and started running laps at the Ring they asked themselves what the most difficult and acceptable standard would be. They observed autocrosses where drivers perform a standing start and cover the entire course. This was accepted procedure amateur enthusiasts the world over were familiar with. So GM looked at the Ring and imagined that it was a giant autocross and that they would treat it accordingly since that was the standard real folks with road cars at countless autocrosses could readily relate to.
We have a standard now, more or less. Rolling starts are in now apparently for all. If we can get consensus on full/partial and videos for all claims (Nissan's run, again to their credit, is the reason for the sudden deluge of evidentiary videos - CTS-V, ZR1 top speed, ZR1 at the Ring) we will have a fairly level fight.
END
Publicity no matter good or bad is generally always better than none at all.
#206
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not sure if anyone's posted or seen this so I thought I'd post it up. It's a vid of the 7:26 lap time of the ZR1. Pretty badass!!!
ZR1 Nurburgring Official 7:26.4 Record Corvette Ru
#207
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I never said factual. Nobody on here can really claim 100% either way unlike someone on here tried to do earlier. I just posted waht R&T or C&D said about the HP. There are also dynos from other sources that read hogher than waht Nissan calims. My opinion, and I have a quotes and dyno readings to go by, is htat in fact it is far higher thatn 480 HP that Nissan claims. Can I say this as a fact, no i can't. Just my humble opinion.
The whole problem I have with the GTR and Nissan is this: If they would have just came out and said what the actual figures are then I would not say a word. Since I think they are way over the stock HP cliam, they want everybody to think that a car with less HP/TQ and more weight can kick the Z's ***. That's the problem I have. it's not grapes to grapes.
I don't thinks it a bad thing to underrate. I mean the LS1 f-bodies were. The GTR may be as much as 70-100 HP MORE than waht Nissan is claiming. That is not 20 or even 40 but may well be in that 70-100HP range depending drivetrain loss % and whos dyno you believe.
The difference here is that Nissan is claiming Xhp and it really might be a lot more. They are racing it when it might not be on the mark HP wise. Again if they would just come out and say that this car in OLOA has Xhp then this would all go away.
The whole problem I have with the GTR and Nissan is this: If they would have just came out and said what the actual figures are then I would not say a word. Since I think they are way over the stock HP cliam, they want everybody to think that a car with less HP/TQ and more weight can kick the Z's ***. That's the problem I have. it's not grapes to grapes.
I don't thinks it a bad thing to underrate. I mean the LS1 f-bodies were. The GTR may be as much as 70-100 HP MORE than waht Nissan is claiming. That is not 20 or even 40 but may well be in that 70-100HP range depending drivetrain loss % and whos dyno you believe.
The difference here is that Nissan is claiming Xhp and it really might be a lot more. They are racing it when it might not be on the mark HP wise. Again if they would just come out and say that this car in OLOA has Xhp then this would all go away.
![Cheers!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_cheers.gif)
I absolutely agree Suaveat69 that the GTR has been underrated no doubt by Nissan, by how much we don't know and it's all speculation by how much and different people will account for different amounts of drive train loss. So discussing the actual numbers would only be bench racing.
But I don't see that as meaning that the car isn't stock, it simply tells me that Nissan has done what many other car companies have done. Was it intentional, I don't know and can only make a guess at that, but from what I understand car manufacturer's do not have any say in the new SAE testing procedures, or at least not as much as they used to. Could it be that the numbers might of been skewed by the new testing format and procedures? Speculation only but I'm not sure if the engine dyno's used for these testing procedures are capable of creating artificial load such as a dynojet can but we're dealing with turbo's here and turbo's love load. Maybe someone who knows more can chime in on the type of dyno's that they use. In any case I don't pretend to know why the numbers are below advertised but it only benefits the consumer in the end I'm sure we can agree.
#208
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I am sure that this particular GTR can and did mangage to beat the stock Z's. But remmebr Tony has drove in OLOA 11 or 15 times. He has much more experience than any otehr Z driver. Again my opinion is htat the GTR is not stock on the HP rating for the Silver car in OLOA. By that token the non-stock C5Z with a less experienced driver handily beat the GTR.
"When it comes to tight corners, nothing rivals an autocross, a tortuous, twisting time trial normally set up in large parking areas and marked by cones. How would the GT-R fare in this test? I never learned the answer to that question. This particular course essentially consisted of two sections separated by about 75 yards of open asphalt with no cones or readily visible references to connect the first to the second. There was no recon run and no second chance. One run, do or die. I am not an autocrosser. When I emerged from the first section, I had no more idea where to go next than if Id been in a white-out snowstorm on a frozen lake. Lost, depressed, and alone, I gave up.
It turned out I was not alone. At least 24 other competitors suffered the same disconnect in midcourse. Realizing the course was flawed, particularly for inexperienced autocrossers, the organizers sought to make a compensatory arrangementminimal points for the lost Lappers.
But those who finished the autocross successfully objected strenuously to this proposal. Rules are rules, said they. And the rules-are-rules lobby, not unreasonably, prevailed. Had I managed to find my way from the first section to the second, and scored a midpack timelets say 29ththe GT-R would have accrued 220 more points and finished seventh overall, despite a so-so finish in the final skidpad event."
I'm not gonna sit here and claim that the GTR finished 7th overall or should of, because it didn't. It finished 11th and that's that. But Tony Swan wasn't as good as he could have been in a few of the exercises despite his experience but on a whole that's racing.
#209
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Before Nissan started testing the GTR they went around and got GM testing procedures on the Z. Then they went out and did the exact opposite of what the Z did testing wise. They were trying to compare the GTR to the Z, although I never read they officially said this, when in fact this was a banana to orange comparison. Adain if you know the opponent and want to try and compare your times to them, then you should do the same exact testing.
#210
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Probably not the right thread for this but check out the machine used to torque down the head bolts on the LS9! ![Icondrool](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icondrool.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...LS9_168134.htm
![Icondrool](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icondrool.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...LS9_168134.htm
#211
![Thumbs up](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif)
Probably not the right thread for this but check out the machine used to torque down the head bolts on the LS9! ![Icondrool](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icondrool.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...LS9_168134.htm
![Icondrool](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icondrool.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...LS9_168134.htm
![Mr. Cool](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_cool.gif)
#212
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not sure if anyone's posted or seen this so I thought I'd post it up. It's a vid of the 7:26 lap time of the ZR1. Pretty badass!!!
ZR1 Nurburgring Official 7:26.4 Record Corvette Ru
back, cars, lap, length, magnusson, nordsch, nordschleife, nurburgring, production, ricers, ring, ss, times, trailblazer, zr1