Duo

The ZR1 actually lost more power (20.85%) due to the parasitic drag of the supercharger as opposed to what the GT-R lost (15.42%) to its all-wheel drive system.

The reason the GT-R and the ZR1 both have their particular drivetrains is largely due to their respective histories. It wasn't ever a question of which drivetrain is superior to the other when the GT-R was designed. Though debatable, proof lies in the lower relative driveline power loss seen in the GT-R.

Now, before anyone gets any ideas of me being a GT-R fanboy, allow me to be very clear: I have no love for the car whatsoever. The same can be said regarding my views on the ZR1. While people are quick to point out a lot of the GT-R's shortcomings, it should also be noted that the ZR1 is also nowhere near perfect. Anyway, more to the point, the comparisons between the GT-R, ZR1, and host of other cars are mainly arbitrary as none of the acknowledged competition match up perfectly.

GT-R and ZR1 are both flawed stylistically
Both have cheap interiors relative to their price range
Both are not even comparable as they are not in the same league (and no, I'm not talking price): sport coupe vs. sportscar
The GT-R is no supercar, it is just really fast
The ZR1 runs on a new derivative of a decades-old motor
The GT-R should be compared to other sport coupes such as the high-end Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers, and 911 Turbo
The ZR1 should be compared to the V8 Vantage and such

It is all marketing. Now, will everyone just please stop it with this nonsense and move on. Both cars are bargains for what they bring to their respective segments and have egregiously been called supercars by the the media. The GT-R and ZR1 are similar only in that they represent the very best in their respective country's effort to bring more performance to the table at a better value.

RollerBoy

Much agreed..

personally I dont like the ZR1 that much and I would probably never buy one if i had the money. but I hate with a passion how all of the overhype that the GTR gets.. I agree it's a good car but it has it's own separate application..

I'd rather import a Noble M500 for the same price but thats another topic...

chairmnofthboard

I agree with the power loss, but not how it lost it.

As far as I know (logic would tell me, but I could be wrong) the supercharger does not change RWHP. Drivetrain changes RWHP. The SC isn't going to lower the RWHP because of it's drag. Once the engine w/ SC makes it flywheel HP/TQ it's done.

chairmnofthboard

I would buy a ZR1 if I had the money. It's an all around fast car that will be a good long term investment.

Duo

I believe there is a parasitic loss of power associated with superchargers because they are primarily driven by the crank. As opposed to turbos that are just driven by exhaust gasses. Shouldn't that explain where the loss originates because it certainly can't be anything else? RWD, as a matter of fact, should net it a lower figure than 20%.

chairmnofthboard

yes there is, at the engine/flywheel. Once that power hit's the flywheel, it's out of the SC parasitic loss arena.

maybe it has something to do with the huge wheels, the rear mounted trans, and the GM "Torque Tube".

20% loss is actually about normal for RWD.

But I will agree that the GT-R had very low drivetrain loss, very impressive, unless the flywheel HP/TQ was under rated at the factory.

05TurboS2k

[QUOTE=chairmnofthboard,Nov 4 2008, 11:43 AM] I agree with the power loss, but not how it lost it.

As far as I know (logic would tell me, but I could be wrong) the supercharger does not change RWHP. Drivetrain changes RWHP.

Duo

What's a torque tube?

That's a surprise. I got the impression that a 15% loss was high from what a lot of the people I've read are saying. The GT-R being all-wheel drive, I thought RWD would be somewhere around 10-12%.

05TurboS2k

^ No 15-20 is typical. The S2000 is a tiny little honda...and as expected very efficient. FWD net's the 10% type numbers.

Wraeththu