YBS1

That is not what I would call a tight course, short in distance maybe but not tight. Fully one half of the course's 1.6 miles are made up of two straightaways, if anything it may favor the 350Z. Further, where the hell are you pulling these numbers from...I have yet to see just one instance from a reputable source of the 350Z pulling a faster slalom than an S2000 in a head to head test under the same conditions. If these "stats" were pulled from their respective runs 8:26/8:39 at the ring, it's no wonder they favor the 350Z so heavily, it was thirteen seconds faster on those particular runs and I addressed that in the previous post. If you think the 350Z can outhandle the S2000 you're out of your skull.

MrGTR

No I haven't. All the data were taken from Nurburgring's own sources. Its true fanboys skew some of these data to talk down other cars, but the fact remains that there is still officially only one reading for either Z and S.

So what do you think the S and Z should be? Do you really think the S is equal to the Z on this type of course? Why doesn't the S run at the JGTC if it is that good?

Well, it has been used many times even before the Z came out. I bet you were pretty happy that the S time was faster than a lot of the other cars back then.

That's probably what a lot of people say about the 290hp NSX-R. How can a car with less power beat these cars :

8:09 --- Ferrari 360 Modena (10/1999)
8:09 --- Lamborghini Diablo SV (no ABS?)
8:10 --- Chrysler Viper GTS, 411PS, UK-Spec, no ABS (10/1997)
8:12 --- Porsche 993 Turbo
8:13 --- Lotus Esprit Sport 350, 354 PS (05/1999)
8:13 --- Dodge Viper SRT-10, 506 PS (10/2004)
8:15 --- Ruf 911 CTR 2, 520 PS
8:15 --- Porsche 911 Carrera 2 (997) (Walter Rohrl - WHEELS June 2004)
8:16 --- AC-Schnitzer E36 M3 CLS II, 350 PS (11/1997)
8:17 --- Aston Martin Vanquish (2003)
8:17 --- Porsche 996 C2
8:18 --- BMW Z8, 400 PS (08/2000)
8:18 --- Chevrolet Corvette Z05 Commemorative Edition, 344 PS (09/2003)
8:18 --- Ferrari F355 (06/1997)
8:20 --- Audi RS6 (2002)
8:23 --- Aston Martin DB7 GT (2003)

All with more torque and horsepower than the NSX. The Ferrari F355 was the fastest production car at Tsukuba (Nismo R34 GTR now holds that honour) yet slower than the NSX-R by nearly 20 seconds at the ring .

Maybe the 350z was designed better for a course like the ring? Or do you not you like the sound of that?

You mean like the Exige which is a quicker car than either Elise, Z or S :

8:42 --- Lotus Exige (11/2000)

MrGTR

And for this quote :

"The GT-R wouldn't need twin-turbos, all-wheel drive, four-wheel steering, and big intercoolers if it wasn't a heavy-ass piece of pork to begin with. And the feds ain't got nothing to do with it: Nissan never sent us the GT-R because out of the 12 people in America who'd actually spend 911 Turbo money on an outdated-looking Japanese coupe, six are in jail at any given time."

The GT-R isn't all-wheel drive, it is bias to the rear wheels and uses the front when traction requires it.

The HICAS system is the same one in the Japanese spec 300zx, serving only for safety measures, not really for performance. Most people take this out to save weight (20kg) and improve handling.

It doesn't have big intercoolers, but mine does.

It isn't a heavy-ass piece of pork to begin with. The R32 GTR only weighs 3153 lbs.

"In 1991 the Skyline R32 GTR was introduced to Australian Touring Car Championships and was extremely successful. It was given the nickname

MrGTR

It is a tight course, just over a minute to complete it. No wonder Miata and S2000 owners love it there at Buttonwillow. It is also a very simple course, with no real challenge other than a sweeper and the sunset section.

The ring is a far more challenging course that requires high collaboration between car and driver.

YBS1

Yes, one reading. As shown by some cars having multiple listings with wildly varying times, with no mention as to what driver or conditions (or insert other variable here) these times were produced under I think using either of these cars one time listed is a disservice.

I can't answer that question and neither can you, but given how close they are under virtually every head to head comparison with usually the S showing the edge I find it more than difficult to believe it loses here by thirteen seconds unless driver skill and track conditions played a large role which seems likely. As for the JGTC, I don't have a clue...why would I concern myself with a Japanese race series? If I were to make an educated guess as to why the S doesn't run it given knowledge of similar racing events....I'd guess maybe a no convertible rule?

S time was faster than....what? You've never seen me using it as a basis to compare cars. I don't think I was even aware of what the S2000's time was on there until this post. In fact the only reason it would interest me at all is in the case of a manufacturer attempting to make a record breaking run, in which case you can at least be virtually assured they will have hired top talent, practiced and will wait for near perfect track conditions for the attempt. Thus minimizing the variables I've been talking about.

I wasn't comparing the 350Z to a car with only more power and torque, there isn't a single area of performance the 350Z can trump the C5 in. Power, handling, braking, weight...are all in the C5s corner. The only explanation for the 350Z turning a faster time is again one or a combination of these variables I've been talking about that the list can't explain by simply looking at the laptimes. Driver, track/car familiarity, and track conditions.

YBS1

The quote was taken from some magazine because it was funny, and quite frankly to try to piss off fanboys who circle jerk over a car they don't own, 99.99% of them will never own, has never been available for sale in America through normal channels, and if somehow they did acquire one they will have paid far too much for it and for the most part it's all because they "can't buy one here". The grass is greener syndrome.

Oh...and that sounds like AWD to me, I also noticed you were selective about the R32 not being overweight showing you know the R33 and 34 are. I figured you'd eventually see that quote and say something about it, but to be honest it's aimed at the people mentioned above more than the car. You wanted one, went out and did something about it...kudos to you.

MrGTR

My last take on the subject.

The Z fared better on the ring because it is more designed for it whereas the S doesn't have the high speed acceleration and top speed to run on such a large and challenging course. The Z with the amazing VQ engine is so competent, that it was entered into the GT500 class at the JGTC and won the championship last year. Give credit to the engine though, it has been fitted into some of the GTRs as well, providing quite a challenge to the FI Supras and any Corvette.

I can't speak for American cars, it seems as though they only perform well in America and poorly in Europe and Japan. That's the only explanation I have for their poor times though the latest Z06 report indicates that the Corvette can run very well at the ring.

Lets just say that like in sports, we cannot define who is the best in it because the term is so broad.
Carl Lewis will beat most people over the 100m, but he will not beat Jeremy Wariner over the 400. Neither are inferior to each other, just specialists at their own game.

MrGTR

I have the R32, so I wouldn't know how much the others weighs. Most definitely heavier but what does that matter to a car that can achieve 1000hp.

steve c

Case closed, you just proved you are an idiot.

SilverKnight

lol