The ZR1 costs $30k more than the premium model GT-R, and is about 3 seconds faster than the GT-R. I'm not gonna bash the ZR1 at all, I think it is very impressive, looks very nice, and is a serious performer, but I would still rather have the GT-R, be it for my money or overall.

Not bad, but it costs over 30 grand more than the GT-R.

At least the ZR1 did it bone stock, everything from ride height to the gas used. The GT-R 7:29 lap was done with a few tweaks to it, with more on the way apparently.

All and all, I would take a Z06 and twin turbo it. A lot more go then the ZR1 then for the same money.

I find it funny how GM made a point of listing the exact specs of the car that ran, making sure people understand it was 100% bone stock. They're obviously taking a shot at Nissan who has had their fair share of controversy about the GTR runs including the suspension tweaks they did and talk of shaved tires.

I've got one question for the GTR fanbois.

Why do you say the ZR1 is $30K more than a GTR? Nissan doesn't make any money on the GTR and we have no idea what price it should sell for if Nissan did want to make money on it. As I stated previously, what if GM decided to sell the ZR1 for $70K and make no money (or lose money) on every one just so they could say they made a $70K car can beat every other car around the 'ring? Would you then say the ZR1 is the performance champ, or complain about GM's "sneaky" pricing?

Bottom line: Nissan sells the GTR for less than it should, so any talk of price-for-performance is moot. Nissan didn't make a $70K car that can beat a 911TT - they made a $70K++ car that they're selling at a reduced price to somehow make it appear their car offers more better bang-for-the-buck.

what about the resale?

"Nissan doesn't make any money on the GTR and we have no idea what price it should sell for if Nissan did want to make money on it."

Do you have a link for this?

Doesn't the gtr have a v6? Just sayin'.

I hope no one thinks that the GTR is going to sell anywhere near the MSRP...

"Bottom line: Nissan sells the GTR for less than it should, so any talk of price-for-performance is moot."

Thats completely rediculous. Whatever the car sells is how much it sells for. Dont read too much into the price of a vehicle. For $30k less, most people would rather have the GT-R, just face it.

"Bottom line: Nissan sells the GTR for less than it should, so any talk of price-for-performance is moot. Nissan didn't make a $70K car that can beat a 911TT - they made a $70K++ car that they're selling at a reduced price to somehow make it appear their car offers more better bang-for-the-buck."

So what? Why do you care that Nissan is losing money on a car you would be paying less for? I really would like to see the price on paper for the cost of building a car. You would be really surprised at how much these guys make per vehicle especially if they make enough of them.

ZR1 has 258 hp more then Nissan. If ZR1 made slover time it would be pathetic.

and the chevy had a bigger gas tank. The nissan ran out-off fuel in the last lap.

Bottom line is this:

GTR is best bang for the buck albeit MUCH fuglier.

ZR1 is pure performance king.

Neither have great interiors which makes the likes of Benz, BMW, and Audio safe and secure in continuing to sell their performance vehicles to the crowd that appreciates it.

Ah. So the top spec Corvette bested the bottom spec GT-R. Nice.

For the world of the ignorant, 4 secs in racing is an eternity. At 60mph, 1sec = ~<15ft. So at 60mph 4secs is about 60ft, three car lenghts. And thats assuming they were actually traveling at 60mph. Now assume that they're traveling at 120mph on the back straight thats now 120ft. That my friends is a pretty big distance.
Now not taking anything away from a GTR, thats one hell of a car. I own a G37 and i'm impressed with that car so I can only imagine what a GTR must feel like.
Simply put i'd take either.

The ZR1 has maybe 75hp more than the absurdly underrated GTR.

The reason the pricing on the GTR is important is because if it's really a loss leader than quantities available will probably be kept very low, and dealership markups might be pretty ugly.

wow.. im surprised it took ALL THIS TIME for GM to show their time.... must be a lot of tweaking ...

gj for gm for at least making it happened!!
3 seconds IS A LOT!

HEY.... i just saw the picture of the engine.. and it says:

"SUPERCHARGED"

so its a v8 supercharged vs v6 turborcharged (6 Liter vs 3.8 Liter)

Of course pricing is important. Ask anyone about the GTR's performance for $70K and they will attribute it to the "superioirity of Nissan's engineers".

This is simply not the case. The engineers had NOTHING to do with the price/performance aspect of the GTR. The marketing people did. But that marketing is paying off for Nissan as people still beilive it's because Nissan made some sort of engineering "breakthrough" to make a car so fast for so little money.

Imagine if you're in a sanctioned racing series and you're allowed $10mil for the season to run your team. But another team is allowed $15mil. That team ends up winning the series. Would anyone think that was some sort of accomplishment? Now if a different team won the series on a $5mil budget, then that would be something. Nissan is trying to fool people into thinking they're the team running on a $5mil budget (the $70K price tag of the GTR) when in fact their budget is much higher (how high, who knows).

The GTR is sold in limited numbers. Of course it is - Nissan can't lose money forever. I bet this is how you can calculate how many GTR's will be produced:

ADVERTISING BUDGET divided by $$$ LOST PER GTR equals NUMBER of GTR's PRODUCED

Pretty simple, really, and it's done all the time in business. If Nissan figures they'd have to spend $50mil on advertising to generate the amount of hype they're getting for the GTR (and Nissan), then why not lose that amount of money and price the car lower? All everyone really talks about regarding the GTR is price-vs-performance.

So I think Nissan has done an excellent job of marketing the GTR. Too bad they couldn't do that with a high volume car - just think how much money they'd make.

@blackfunk

At a speed of 60 MPH, you are traveling 1 mile per minute, or 5280 feet in 60 seconds, or 88 feet per second. So 4 seconds at 60 MPH would actually be that it beat it by 352 feet.

15 feet per seconds would be rougly 10 MPH.

The GT-R needs a bit more horsepower to at least keep up with its other supercar competitors in Top Speed Runs!!! It weighs a little too much and is not very areodynamically efficient. That cause too much drag resistance at high speeds!!!

Don't you all agree with me???

How's GM's shares doin'? Oh not so well? Hmmm.... "Why do you say the ZR1 is $30K more than a GTR? HOW ABOUT BECAUSE IT IS!!! What a ridiculous question. Somebody can't get over the fact that GM blows along with Ford and Chrysler. It's not the 60's anymore "Reality" here's a reality check for you. GM is losing tons of money and it's not because of one halo car. The "American" car companies got to cocky and are now playing catch up. Nissan isn't even the best japanese company either. Wait 'til Lexus and Acura come out with their supercars with way more efficient engines than the "American" engines.

Chrysler 300 limited 3.5L 250hp 250 torque

Acura RL 3.5L 290hp 256 torque

Where does that extra hp and torque come from?

Magic or more efficient engines? Hmmm.....

Lexus IS305 3.5L 306hp 277 torque

and these vehicles are naturally aspirated not Turbo or Supercharged.

Ford Taurus 3.5L 263 hp 249 torque. Come on!

Hmmmm, 6.0 361 hp 385 ft/lbs 4000 lbs 15/24 car vs 3.5 306 hp 270 ft/lbs 3500 lbs 18/25. Yea, the Japs are great at fuel efficiency and power N/A.

I love people commenting on luxery car engines vs base sedan engines the motors in both the lexus and acura are quite a bit more expensive then say a taurus or crysler 300. 22k vs 40k theres gonna be a bit of a price diffrence. I love how people start to bash the company now that godzilla has been slain by rohan or w/e its rival was called. Face it the gtr lost fair and square, its widely known to make 600 hp or so at the crank and the corvette will probably by a bit underrated as well but in the end it was faster with less technology because it doesnt weigh as much as a small moon like the gtr. The gtr has a drag coeffienct of .27 which is better then the .29 in the toyota prius and much better then the .34 in the corvette so you cant say that, the reason the gtr does so bad at high speed is because of its weight as it has less drag but it has to haul a lot more. I love that the zr1 didnt do it in perfect conditions like the gtr though thats the absolute best. I do like the idea of the gtr the only people that really love this car are people to like to masterbate to numbers and have I heart my honda stickers on their car.

It is clear that most of the posts are nothing more than domestic lovers vs. import lovers...with a few neutral performance car lovers getting in between. Who gives a crap. Both cars are great, although most people I think would take the Nissan due to assumed better build quality. A lap time at Nurburgring shouldn't be the deciding factor. Your impression of the car and what you intend to use the car for should be. Do you really think someone who buys a ZR1 or GTR are going to buy it strictly on a lap time...especially if they are going to drive it on the street? The ZR1 is a great car, although I don't like the hood window, but I would rather have the GTR "coupe." I don't know why people are calling either "supercars." The GTR is a sports car and the ZR1 is a highly modified sports car aimed at supercar numbers. The only supercar Nissan has ever produced was the R390 GT1. I can't think of any Corvette supercar...just lots of heavily modified sports cars. That's like saying the 1000-hp Skylines were supercars...they were just modified too. It's no different than modifying an STI or Lancer Evo. If the base model isn't a supercar, than neither is the version that has all kinds of performance tweaks.

I guess it depends on how you define "supercar". These days the picture is pretty muddy. There's luxury supercars cars like most of the Porsche's (GT excluded), Lambo's and most of the Ferrari's (F40/F50/Enzo excluded). There's the classical supercars like the ones excluded above and the Benz CLK-GTR and others, and now there's the bang for the buck supercars - Vette, GTR.

There's also the ultralight category (Atom, Catterham, Radical) that most don't consider supercars but that can beat up supercars pretty badly on most tracks.

Strictly performance wise, the bang for the buck cars can actually outperform virtually ALL the luxury category and most of the classical category. I tend to think if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smokes the living snot out of all the old school ducks... then it's probably a duck.

As far as ZR1 vs. GTR goes... if it was a daily driver I'd go for the GTR (AWD means MUCH more streetable), if it was a weekend warrior it'd be ZR1.

Pushrods

I've been a fan of both cars for ever; the Vette for more than 30 years & the Skyline since the R30 RS-X. However, neither the Skyline or the Vette get to cut rug on the Supercar dance floor, no matter what times they post at any given track. Nor will either be remotely considered by any Supercar owners-to-be. The Vette, whether ZR-1 or not, is simply not exclusive enough (thousands on the road that look very similar) to attract the ultra rich, & none of the aforementioned rich would be caught dead handing the valet a set of Nissan keys as they trot their trophy girlfriend thru the doors at the Country Club. Do you think he wants to sit next to your zit covered ass in the customer lounge while you're getting a brake job on your Sentra?

The guy that buys a Lambo/Zonda/Ferrari/etc/etc doesn't give a rats ass about how fast your Chevy or Nissan "tuner car" can lap the 'Ring. He just cares that his Supercar can come relatively close.

And that's all that matters.

Ummm, they are only making 2000 ZR1s for the world a year. It is not something you are going to see every day. I would call that exclusive.

@arthur papas

You hit the head on the nail... it's about being unique...

If you have the money to throw at a "supercar," you are not going to want to spend that money on a modified "poor mans" (relatively speaking) version of a car.

Look, I know the Corvette ZR1 would probably smoke any car out there today, but I know any one of you would agree it wouldn't be the same as driving around in a Lamborghini or Ferrari. It just isn't the same.

GT-R has 4 seats, 4 wheel drive. Arguably the fastest 2+2 in production.

Z-R1 is one of the fastest 2 seaters around.

They share a similar price *range*.

When all said and done, less than 1% of those posting and following the hype are capable of driving EITHER of these machines anywhere near those numbers... furthermore, none of us could drive either hard enough to notice the difference in performance *potential*.

A benefit of the GT-R (if you can get your hands on one of the allocated 1500, regionally restricted, and 70% purchased already... and pay the dealership's exclusivity fees *mine will be delivered July 25th, and dealership wants $20k over cost).... back to the benefit amidst this run-on... is that the car is more forgiving to driver error.

In any comparison, none of us will sway sides... they are 2 different vehicles with 2 different appeals and both perform with phenomenal capability. I'd say only a handful of these machines will ever see 180+ mph, and few among those that attempt will be on commuter roads in lieu of groomed race tracks.

I'm confused, so this has ~150hp more than the GTR weighs ~200kg less than the GTR and can only manage to be 3 seconds quicker over ~28kms than the GTR? Surely it should be faster than that?

Anyway, whoopie I don't really like either and the guy above said it pretty well all though the GTR will probably be more likely to turn your ham fists into tap shoes with all it's gadgets.

So Nissan has only sold 70% of their 1,500 cars? And up until yesterday, nobody even bothered to post in the GTR thread that's directly below the ZR1 thread on TTR?

Funny how everyone gathers here to bash the ZR1 (and drag in the GTR) while nobody even bothers to post in the GTR thread.

I guess Chevy did something right to cause so many people to get so upset.

i agree above me.
and the GT-R is also a good daily driving car. could also a reason for its reasonable horsepower.
overall, still the GT-R.
corvette, muscle car.

I would still rather roll in a lambo. Not as fast as either car, but its more unique.

that time sure got the rice fanboy's panties in a knot.

Hilarious

Im with cobalt id rather be pimping a audi r8 then either car any day of the week if it was just to be cruising around.

Wow I can't believe how people just go, "OH OH it has this engine size and make SO much more power. It must be more efficient and BETTER."

WTF? Do you people even have any idea how an engine works, say other than gas and air go and in and it goes boom? Really?

You roughly have 3 different types/tunes of naturally aspirated engines.

1. Low strung, higher torque. Much like a diesel, your rpms are usually around 6500 rpm or lower. The torque curve is relatively flat and usually peaks at 3000 or lower. Typical of most American truck engines in the 90's. Or say an 88 Mustang 5.0 (in stock form). This is typically due to a more mild cam and a moderate size valve setup.

2. Midrange. Typical for more sedans. Redline usually around 6500-7000, with a slightly more aggressive torque curve (usually peaking around 4000-4500 rpm). Paired with a moderate weight car it usually makes for a fine driving experience. And this is mostly achieved with a more aggressive cam. Hence why every year (or production model) cars get just a little more power.

3. High strung. Typical of tuned Honda engines (such as the B16). Typical redline 8000K+. Torque peaks after 4500 rpm depending on cam (could be over 6000). Not great as a daily driver unless the car is very light. Low end acceleration is affect because of peaky torque curve. Great on the high end, but lacks the get up and go.

So what have we learned? In day to day driving a "less efficient" larger engine will provide more torque down low and a more pleasing experience to the average person. On a track? Well considering you are probably pushing it hard all the time you would go with #3. All in all, going with a supercharger or turbo changes things dramatically. Take a twin turbo BMW, it has goobs of torque and high revving. It's all about have it's engineered.

If you want to talk about efficiency don't go, 5L @ 300hp vs. 3.5L @ 320hp. That doesn't work, why don't we do it for oh I don't know fuel economy?

I mean a top fuel dragster is like what 6-7L and makes 1500hp+? But it only gets like 1 mile to a gallon (if that).

@ Avatar:

While I cannot dispute the numbers in your argument, my point is that Average Joe wouldn't know there's $100K between a ZR-1 & the $15K used 01 right beside it.

All I can say is "Nisan GT-R Spec-V"

engineer in zr1=7:26
race car driver in gtr=7:29
engineer in gtr=7:38
wonder what a race car driver in a zr1 will do.

How can you people not love the corvette ZR1?

It's not competition for the GT-R, it's competition for the Viper ACR.

I doubt ANYONE will be cross-shipping a blisteringly fast American made V8 sports-car with the 4seat super fast 4wd luxury coupe GT-R. They're both fast, forced induction, and both 90k+ (with markups), that's pretty much where the comparisons should end.

I'm willing to bet anyone the Spec V will be faster, especially in unskilled hands. Techno gizmos are excellent for rich unskilled people.

Who here has raced a vette down a twisty road when it's a little bit slick after a rainstorm in a WRX? The WRX, despite being hugely down on power, can give the Corvette a whoppin if conditions are right. Comparing a RWD to a 4WD car just isn't fair, 4wd will always give you a ton more traction in the corner. If and when Nissan makes a 100k 2 seater RWD then perhaps you can make a comparison.

I think this thing's competition is the VIPER, or perhaps the Saleen GT500(not fast). Some people want American muscle, this is superfast american muscle.

Agreed Arthur Pappas. The same time, most can't tell the difference between a 3 series, 5 series, and 7 series BMW, including the Ms by looking at them. One of the reasons I like my GTO so much is that it looks just like another car on the road, until someone lines up with me and I put my foot down. I am more of a sleeper type person, so Lambos and Ferraris just stick out too much for my tastes. The same time, if someone gave me one, I would take it.

Touching more on what unknown said. The ZR1 could have done more, "could have gone faster at points", and there was a "strong head wind". As to how much that effected the car, no one can say. I would like to see someone from the C6.R team take it around the Ring and see what numbers they get.

Excellent point amigo, the Viper is the Vette's competition, not the GT-R. The problem is, Nissan doesn't make a rwd coupe in this price range that is performance based. Thus, the GT-R and Vette will be compared until the GM has a high dollar performance AWD car, highly unlikely, or Nissan has a high dollar rwd performance car, more likely then GM going the other way, though still highly unlikely.

Brian:
Top fuel NHRA type motors put out 7,000 HP mpg is not In miles, but feet. tank of gas is gone at end. thats why when you see one explode its is like a bomb, gas is going in and coming out by the many(40 gal to go a mile)? gallons per mile,, ah the smell of nitro methan, brings a tear to my eye. nothing sounds as mean and nasty standing near a top fuel during a tire warming, nothing. but they wont work on the street. not very green

That car hauls ass, period. I don't care who makes it. I'm a fanboy of speed, not some company.

The 'ring is very twisty and favors AWD. What's more impressive to me is that the Vette posted those numbers with a development engineer behind the wheel and only RWD.

I think prices will be very similar as well. GT-R dealers are raping customers with insane markups. So, the price argument is moot, IMO.

As far as who wins on quality, that depends on if you factor in engine and drivetrain durability, not just the interior.

A note to GM: change the damn hood. That plexiglas hood window is not cool. If you want to show off the engine, manufacture the mid-engine GTM (Corvette conversion kit) and then use all the plexiglas you want. The GTM is sick!

This round goes to GM fair and square. Kudos.

Gratz GM, now let your hire hand take it for a few laps, that should be good for 5-10 seconds.

As for the re-sale value, everyone of the ZR-1's is a collectors item and will have a much higher re-sale value than any GT-R. The first one sold for over 1 million $$. There is just no market for jap exotics. Besides the NSX and LF-A will completely overshadow the GT-R in the near future.

The ZR1 would be my choice of vehicle under the following circumstances:

- I was only allowed to buy an American car
- I had 100K to spend on a vehicle
- I had never outgrown my high school perceptions of what a sports car should look like
- I had a second vehicle to drive in inclement weather or when the ZR1 was in the shop
- I didn't have to commute to my job in the ZR1 on a daily basis
- gas was given away for free
- I never had to travel with more than an iPod and my laptop
- I had my groceries home delivered to me
- I was harboring some serious feelings of inadequacy
- I suddenly lost all my concepts of practicality and good taste, and
- the Cobalt SS was no longer being sold.

I am a slave