Nurburgring times yet?

[ON D BIT]

I'm sure both of you are RIGHT about everything you say (because you think you are) and there is no changing that.

Captain Insano: The ZL1 did go to the 1/4 as well, but it also posted road couse times. Like the ZR1 and Z06 it's an all around car, it does both performance benchmarks well for it's automotive class. All the hype surrounding the GT500 has only been backed up in 1/4 mile times, nothing else. Ok, I'll admit, the ZL1 may not be "Purpose" built for the road course, but it is definitely set up for it more than it is the 1/4 mile (just like the ZR1 and Z06) and that appears to be GM's intent with the various suspension and handling upgrades.

According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if it is tested at the ring?
According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if the manufacturer says so?

Most new automobiles from Europe and the far are tested on the ring. This would make hundreds of thousands of race prepped purpose built track cars roaming the streets of this nation every day. :lol:

Purpose built means the ability to handle lap after lap after lap in a race or race type scenario. There is a reason the viper gtr has remained n/a. There is a reason the z06 is n/a. There is a reason the boss 302 s remains n/a. What do these three cars have the zl1 does not?

The gt500 has run many of the tracks the zl1 has in testing with better results. Ford has simply chosen to keep them internal for r and d. As far as backing up road course prowess, being faster than the 7 year old Ford super car around a road course is enough! Is the gt500 a purpose built for the race track? No, even though it is faster around the track in a timed one lap sprint than its purpose built brother the boss 302.

GTR running the ring are not stock in the hands of Nissan.
7:24.22 Nissan GT-R (2011) Toshio Suzuki 1 October 2010 Nissan conducted test.[18] Semi-wet conditions. Video confirmed. Best Motoring (12/2010).[19]
Or 12 seconds faster than the independent test that was done in better conditions.
7:34 Nissan GT-R (2011) Horst von Saurma October 2010 Sport Auto (11/2010),.[31]
There was only a 6 sec difference between the Porsche factory test and independent test of their faster gt2rs.

Hell even Ferrari tunes there cars for road course mag reviews. Before the test Ferrari need to have 2 weeks notice so they can fly a few cars to the track and tune them specifically for that track. Why do they do this? Do I really need to answer that?oke:

 

[TORQJNKY]

According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if it is tested at the ring?
According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if the manufacturer says so?

Most new automobiles from Europe and the far are tested on the ring. This would make hundreds of thousands of race prepped purpose built track cars roaming the streets of this nation every day. :lol:

Purpose built means the ability to handle lap after lap after lap in a race or race type scenario. There is a reason the viper gtr has remained n/a. There is a reason the z06 is n/a. There is a reason the boss 302 s remains n/a. What do these three cars have the zl1 does not?

The gt500 has run many of the tracks the zl1 has in testing with better results. Ford has simply chosen to keep them internal for r and d. As far as backing up road course prowess, being faster than the 7 year old Ford super car around a road course is enough! Is the gt500 a purpose built for the race track? No, even though it is faster around the track in a timed one lap sprint than its purpose built brother the boss 302.

GTR running the ring are not stock in the hands of Nissan.
7:24.22 Nissan GT-R (2011) Toshio Suzuki 1 October 2010 Nissan conducted test.[18] Semi-wet conditions. Video confirmed. Best Motoring (12/2010).[19]
Or 12 seconds faster than the independent test that was done in better conditions.
7:34 Nissan GT-R (2011) Horst von Saurma October 2010 Sport Auto (11/2010),.[31]
There was only a 6 sec difference between the Porsche factory test and independent test of their faster gt2rs.

Hell even Ferrari tunes there cars for road course mag reviews. Before the test Ferrari need to have 2 weeks notice so they can fly a few cars to the track and tune them specifically for that track. Why do they do this? Do I really need to answer that?oke:

You're right, just like everyone else here with an opinion. :beer:

 

[einehund]

I'm based in German and would GLADLY take a '13 around the ring for you (provided you send me the '13) and let you know how fast it is.....!!

 

[Captain Beyond]

I'm sure both of you are RIGHT about everything you say (because you think you are) and there is no changing that.

Captain Insano: The ZL1 did go to the 1/4 as well, but it also posted road couse times. Like the ZR1 and Z06 it's an all around car, it does both performance benchmarks well for it's automotive class. All the hype surrounding the GT500 has only been backed up in 1/4 mile times, nothing else. Ok, I'll admit, the ZL1 may not be "Purpose" built for the road course, but it is definitely set up for it more than it is the 1/4 mile (just like the ZR1 and Z06) and that appears to be GM's intent with the various suspension and handling upgrades.

TorqJunk: I'm glad you finally came to your senses. :-D

 

[Captain Beyond]

According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if it is tested at the ring?
According to you the car, make that any car is a purpose built car if the manufacturer says so?

Most new automobiles from Europe and the far are tested on the ring. This would make hundreds of thousands of race prepped purpose built track cars roaming the streets of this nation every day. :lol:

Purpose built means the ability to handle lap after lap after lap in a race or race type scenario. There is a reason the viper gtr has remained n/a. There is a reason the z06 is n/a. There is a reason the boss 302 s remains n/a. What do these three cars have the zl1 does not?

The gt500 has run many of the tracks the zl1 has in testing with better results. Ford has simply chosen to keep them internal for r and d. As far as backing up road course prowess, being faster than the 7 year old Ford super car around a road course is enough! Is the gt500 a purpose built for the race track? No, even though it is faster around the track in a timed one lap sprint than its purpose built brother the boss 302.

GTR running the ring are not stock in the hands of Nissan.
7:24.22 Nissan GT-R (2011) Toshio Suzuki 1 October 2010 Nissan conducted test.[18] Semi-wet conditions. Video confirmed. Best Motoring (12/2010).[19]
Or 12 seconds faster than the independent test that was done in better conditions.
7:34 Nissan GT-R (2011) Horst von Saurma October 2010 Sport Auto (11/2010),.[31]
There was only a 6 sec difference between the Porsche factory test and independent test of their faster gt2rs.

Hell even Ferrari tunes there cars for road course mag reviews. Before the test Ferrari need to have 2 weeks notice so they can fly a few cars to the track and tune them specifically for that track. Why do they do this? Do I really need to answer that?oke:

Come on ON D BIT, everyone knows a 4100+ lb. supercharged pig is a purpose built track car because Al O. and camaro5 say so. :lol1:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

I'm sure both of you are RIGHT about everything you say (because you think you are) and there is no changing that.

[trimmed for posterity]

Bottom line: No average driver, on any day, on any course, can produce times like these, so arguing about them is pointless, but I do think all performance cars should be tested and timed at all aspects of performance they are built for. If the benchmark is the Ring and the quarter mile, then so be it.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument.​

again with those fallacies. you're only discrediting everything that comes after them when you use them.

the trimmed portion being some minor inaccuracies(some debatable, others true because i didn't feel like wasting my time) in my post that are of little consequence to my overlying point. you spend a lot of time on those minor inaccuracies, yet ignore the 'meat' of my post entirely. that 'meat' being why nurburgring times aren't a usable, realistic performance metric, and why, in comparison, the quarter mile is a very usable, realistic metric. or a benchmark as you've now proclaimed it. hell, you all but said that all the variables make it unusable, yet go on to wave the flag none the less.

meanwhile, we have stalwart handling metrics such as the slalom, 60-0/100-0, and skidpad that, while certainly not delivering the whole picture, provide very useful data that can give us an idea about the cornering(and braking) potential of a vehicle, and it meets the same criteria that quarter mile times do(independent sources, multiple numbers from multiple sources, etc.) that actually make this data usable.
hell, car & driver's yearly 'lightning lap' and motortrends annual 'best drivers car' actually provide more useful, comparable data than ANY nurburgring number. it covers most of the variables - independent sources, stock cars, with testing that limits tuning(I.E., gives us numbers that are more in line with showroom stock cars) - that the nurburgring times don't while also taking place on popular tracks in north america that joe blow might actually run on should he have the desire. they are far from perfect - only one lap time for each car each year, each source using a track of their own choosing instead of getting multiple times in the same car at the same track from different sources, etc., and the data shows this('vette GS being 2.6 seconds faster than the Z06 - with the GS time coming from the 2010 test and the Z06 time coming from the 2006 test), but it certainly gives us MUCH more data than the nurburgring times that we can use to extrapolate what a car is really capable of.

TorqJunk: I'm glad you finally came to your senses. :-D

lmao:beer:

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

final thoughts on "handling" and track times & numbers...

in the end, numbers can't tell anyone how "good" the handling of a car may be, and the toyobaru twins prove this. anyone that thinks that the ZL1 or '13 GT500 will be better handling cars than those two is obviously a complete ****ing moron. despite track times, braking distances, slalom numbers, skidpad numbers, nurburgring times, and whatever else anyone wants to pull out their ass favoring the big V8 muscle cars over the twins, they simply won't handle as well as the toyobarus. a race isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about being in first place on the last lap. an open track session isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about having fun and bettering your self as a driver. the only people who will actually find lap times useful are the very few guys that compete in time attacks. for anyone else, it's merely about an ego boost and nothing more.

 

[Captain Beyond]

final thoughts on "handling" and track times & numbers...

in the end, numbers can't tell anyone how "good" the handling of a car may be, and the toyobaru twins prove this. anyone that thinks that the ZL1 or '13 GT500 will be better handling cars than those two is obviously a complete ****ing moron. despite track times, braking distances, slalom numbers, skidpad numbers, nurburgring times, and whatever else anyone wants to pull out their ass favoring the big V8 muscle cars over the twins, they simply won't handle as well as the toyobarus. a race isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about being in first place on the last lap. an open track session isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about having fun and bettering your self as a driver. the only people who will actually find lap times useful are the very few guys that compete in time attacks. for anyone else, it's merely about an ego boost and nothing more.

:thumbsup:

 

[Shaker1]

...So Grandpa out on his trip to the grocery store see's a car leaving a red light thinking it's going the 35mph posted speed limit he has always seen in town and POW he gets run through with one of these vehicles. At some point the powers that be (yeah they are are rocks too) will step in and say whoa Nelly you can't make these machines anymore, they kill people. Although it was really the nut behind the wheel not the car that did the damage...

If that were the case, both cigarettes and motorcycles would be long gone. Not to mention cell phones.:burnout:

 

[ON D BIT]

What we know. Ford did pre testing at the ring. Ford then did post testing at the ring with the final product.

Ford seems very confident with track times including ring times, but are keeping times in house. The big question is it faster than the 41?

Both the GT500 and zl1 are not purpose built track cars, even if they can create one hero lap!epper::beer:

 

[Shaker1]

Let me step in and say (to no one in particular) that if I never hear the word "Nurburgring" ever again, it will be too soon!:coolman:

 

[TORQJNKY]

TorqJnky: I'm glad you finally came to your senses. :-D

lmao:beer:

Wow, do you two hold hands when you sit at the computer together at night, because you sure swing off each others genitals in perfect synchronization.

Purpose built means the ability to handle lap after lap after lap in a race or race type scenario. There is a reason the viper gtr has remained n/a. There is a reason the z06 is n/a. There is a reason the boss 302 s remains n/a. What do these three cars have the zl1 does not?

Is the Corvette ZR1 not a track car? Last I checked it was supercharged.

final thoughts on "handling" and track times & numbers...in the end, numbers can't tell anyone how "good" the handling of a car may be, and the toyobaru twins prove this. anyone that thinks that the ZL1 or '13 GT500 will be better handling cars than those two is obviously a complete ****ing moron. despite track times, braking distances, slalom numbers, skidpad numbers, nurburgring times, and whatever else anyone wants to pull out their ass favoring the big V8 muscle cars over the twins, they simply won't handle as well as the toyobarus. a race isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about being in first place on the last lap. an open track session isn't about setting the fastest lap time, it's about having fun and bettering your self as a driver. the only people who will actually find lap times useful are the very few guys that compete in time attacks. for anyone else, it's merely about an ego boost and nothing more.

Your opinion of course and I respect that, this is a good discussion.

The Nurburgring is simply considered "The Benchmark" to determine which cars have true all out performance of power, handling and braking, and all the components necessary that make up a true sports car. It's a proving ground for auto manufacturers as well as a race track.

So Ry_Trapp0, what you're saying is, the 13 GT500 is only a "Muscle Car" and not a true "Sports Car". That it lacks some of these overall performance characteristics and shouldn't be tested/timed against it's competitors at the Ring, because all Ring times are good for is to boost the ego of all the other car manufacturers who take their cars there to fully test the capabilities of their product against it's competitors? :dw:

The top 100 cars that posted times at the ring are all 500+HP sports cars you can buy right off the show room floor (with a few exceptions and some light weight cars). Yes, some were modified to run those times and some cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those few cars aside, the Ring is the ultimate test, taking all the performance traits of one vehicle into account and laying it out across 13 miles and 73 turns, it's not a race, although some consider it as such because it's timed. It's all in the spirit of competition amoungst manufacturers. I understand that the end result of that competition can also be construed as "one car being better than the other". You want to be the best, then go out and compete with the best. Take a 100 runs and go post a glory run with everyone else, why is that so hard. Ford says the GT500 has run many of the tracks the zl1 has in testing with better results but won't post them. Call it what you want (R&D, advertising ploy, no need to). The way I see it, "Put Up or Shut up". They posted times of a Ford Focus RS and ST in 2009, why not their crown jewel?

We can go back an fourth about this all day, all week, all year. Are any of us right or wrong on what the best way to test a car is? It doesn't matter. We aren't the auto manufacturers building and selling these cars, so who are we to say what the right and wrong way to test an automotive product is. It's just fun to have competitive discussions on a car forum about, no disrespect intended or implied :beer:

Edit: And for users of the juvenille words "Fan Boy" "Fanboi", I've owned (5) Ford, (1) GM, and (1) Dodge sports cars. I just happen to drive a GM product right now. I am loyal to no brand, I just like driving fast American made sports cars.

 

[Yellow Horse]

I dont think Ford cares, so far they have shown that have zero interest in the 'ring marketing ploy...all they have said is they think it will win at any track

Ford knows people want a car for the drag strip and straightline performance. All these Gubamint Motors fan boys bragging about how good the ZL1 is on a road course would give up a nut for the power in the 2013 GT500. 1 in 10k will ever see a road course.

A ZL1 owner's butt hole will pucker when a 2013 GT500 pulls up beside them. As the ZL1 owners eases off the clutch when the light changes, "Hehehehehe, I can beat you'un on Da Rang"

 

[rwboring]

I think it will be interesting to see actual times from guys like you and I because that's who matters. By the way I bet 95% of the people who "race" these will be at the strip and not at a track and if it was on a track I bet MOST of our times would be so slow it won't matter which of the cars we were in.

 

[Crim]

No published ring times pretty much concedes to the ZL1... might as well get used to hearing it over and over... Believe me if it was anywhere in the 7's it would be released.

 

[DBK]

No published ring times pretty much concedes to the ZL1... might as well get used to hearing it over and over... Believe me if it was anywhere in the 7's it would be released.

:lol1:

Yeah, you got it. The car ran 8:45. :rollseyes

 

[jonesd]

I personally don't think they want to release anything simply so gm doesn't have a benchmark for the next zl1

If the car really hit 179mph on the straight like dbk says, that right there is impressive to me when the zr1 does 182

 

[Captain Beyond]

Wow, do you two hold hands when you sit at the computer together at night, because you sure swing off each others genitals in perfect synchronization.

Wow, what an original juvenile response. :lol1: Did you think of that one yourself? :idea: What are you?...13? Just because someone doesn't agree with you (like most everyone on here), you resort to childish attacks? As an authorized vendor, is this really the way you treat potential customers? :loser: When you first posted, I went into your website link because I was interested in your products since we have a front plate law here in TX. I'm impressed with your products and was getting ready to order several brackets for our local car club. Now...you can just stick them up your ass. :-D

 

[ON D BIT]

Is the Corvette ZR1 not a track car? Last I checked it was supercharged.

Wow you catch on quick! :beer:

What will turn better lap times after 30 min on track, z06 or the zr1? What will turn better lap times the 997 gt3 or the zr1? What will turn better lap times after 30 min on track 302s or the zr1?oke:

 

[zr1gerhardt]

3. You're Wrong. The ZR1 did not have a roll cage nor did it have chassis modifications, it had Sparco racing seats, a seat belt harness bar (not a full cage), and a fire bottle—and data equipment.

That is correct from what I remember.

Scott