Nissan GTR vs LS7/LS9 1st Gen
 

Ntnt

They will be fun no doubt and will crush guts but put one up against a GTR is a tall order to beat.. they are just the pinnacle of Japanese engineering into cars..



but they are lifeless to me..



If I was going to go head to head with one I would make sure mine was built by Mark Stielow and then try...

Performance/safety level wise, GTR wins hands down.

Cool factor, Camaro wins.

I'd own both if I won the lottery.

I would have to agree ^^^

GTR is a nice piece of engineering for sure.

I don't think it's a great comparison, but I think it would be a pretty tall order to see a first gen beat a GTR on the track - but then again, Brian Hobough's stingray won the Optima Challenge, and I'm fairly certain there was a GTR there, so who knows.

Who's driving?

Your posts seem to be all over the map. Comparing completely different platforms of cars is like comparing a Sprint Cup car to a Kia.

An 11 second 1/4 Mile is far from slow. It's very difficult to make a street car run 10 seconds. It takes a lot of tuning and chassis setup. I'm not sure which Stock LS powered first Gens you are seeing running in the 10's because that would be incredibly difficult even if the car is completely set up.

The GTR is meant to perform in all aspects, the same as a ZO6 or a ZR1. Most of the people on this site are concerned with handling more than anything. When they are referring to "the track" they mean a road course.

As far as you putting 550-650HP into a First Gen. It will certainly be more than a "gut crusher" as you said. Hopefully you are planning on 335 or 345' rear tires to help with traction.

I'm not sure what your experience is with power on the street but 450 HP in a well set up car can get you into trouble in a hurry. Hopefully you are planning major suspension and braking upgrades as well.

The GTR will beat you 9.5 times out of 10 if the driver is of 2/3 of your skill level or better.

And no, it is not pretty easy to make a first gen run 10s with a stock LS... Off the top of my head I can think of... None

GT-R hands down. That thing is all beast. Plus,...the AWD doesn't hurt either.
I would love a '69 Camaro with either a LS7 or LS9 though. And that would be no slouch for sure.

Ok. I will bite. How many stock ls7 powered Z06s have you seen running 10s (I only know of one or two and they don't exactly meet the dictionary definition of stock)? And please forgive me - I don't get to read too many magazines so I may be out of touch.

What are you going to do to get your '69 that light?

Ranger- 11.13 @ 127 Bone stock, stock tires:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdR3WV9tLk

Ranger- 10.85 @129 Bone stock, DragRadials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=469NvIOiz7U

Another- 11.02 @ 125 Stock tires, Nothing but Corsa axelback exhaust:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdW9EgHjDpA

DP Racing- 11.13 @128 Bone stock, DragRadials:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/f...t=Dom09Z06.flv

Yes - iirc ranger has run as fast as 10.7 and change. One or two cars rarely make a good case study. I can likewise think of a couple of 10 second "bone stock" GTRs that have run 10s (athough they may have done it on street tires).

The last 40 years have seen some MAJOR advances in engineering. Not to mention it's all wheel drive. I've said it and I'll say it again, if you are building a pro touring car and think you will end up with anything close to a Nissan GTR, you best save your money and tears. It just can't be done.

If you are in love with a muscle car and want a capable, modern version, you are in luck.

These cars just don't have millions of dollars of engineering.

Camaros don't, but apparently a Mustang does. ;)

http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicl...tang_obsidian/

:badidea:


lol

are we just talking about 0-60? 60-120? Autocross? Road race? Street race?! Heaven forbid anyone might want to do a little of that in their sacred pro touring car.
Really, aside from the truly awesome modern supercar engineering of the gtr, if we're talking sheer performance, it's all about how much money one can and will throw at it. Easy? No. Cheap? No way in hell. But impossible? Tell that to the guys that have built some of the heavier hitting, more expensive pro tourers lately.
HOWEVER, I'm sure in most cases, even with all the latest 'pro touring tech' out there AND a ton of hp, compared to a gtr or any brand new 100k+ sports/super car, modern stuff is just way easier to control, obviously. Stielow himself admitted that Red Devil was a good bit harder to drive than a new zl1, and his cars have more modern tech thrown at them then almost anyone's round here now days.

The goal should be to build a modernized old car that will hold it's own, not necessarily beat a high end modern car. Seat time probably allowed Brian Hobaugh to beat several GTRs in the last competition. On paper he was down hp for most of the field, but had less weight and more time behind the wheel. The better driver won in the end.

I just bought the wife a new GT500. It will break traction in 1st-3rd if your not careful with the nannies on. Im actually rethinking my hp goals for my 65 and 68 Corvette. Im starting to think 550hp or so might be a better idea than 700, lol.

There's more to a car than performance numbers.

At the end of the day... If you invest GTR style money in to a vintage project, the GTR will "beat" you almost every day of the week (if being driven by drivers of similar talent). If you invest Pro Touring style money in to a GTR the GTR will "beat" you every day of the week and then some (then again so will most modern high performance cars). Reality is PT cars are cool, fun, different, unique, can be assembled over time and most of us enjoy the heck out of them but very few, if any of them, can directly "compete" with a modern supercar (if that is your measure of success).

Stand back, everyone. Captain Obvious has entered this room! :lol:

:action-smiley-027:


No one is talking about racing a dyno here.

And that pretty much wraps it up.

If there was probably anyone in here who took a stab at the question you asked this guy would be it.. and right out of the horses mouth(yes james I called you a horse..lol) a pt car cannot really play with a GTR..

that car is just the Future of cars.. that and better cars will be from now on.. as long as we dont go broke designing them.. lol.

look..

why even ask the question?


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CG2cux_6Rcw/0.jpg













'mans gotta know his limitations..







thats like thinking to yourself.. I wonder if I have the best health, the best doctors, trainers, practice, etc..

could I fight Manny Paquiao or Mayweather...if I was comparable size.

Bingo.

Like what?? :poke: seriously, 100% agreed. But what does that have anything to do with a question ABOUT PERFORMANCE NUMBERS;)??

I agree it was more of a performance question but I think he left the door open for reliability, noise, and comfort. :walkingdog:

Definitely. I struggled trying to articulate briefly refinement vs performance, so I decided to just address the performance end of the question. It would definitely take more than a Scrooge mcduck swimming pool of money to REFINE any muscle car to gtr level. Probably Basically impossible. But With all those crazy great 'advancements' you mentioned, It sure doesn't take tons of engineering savvy nowadays to 'bolt together' a very capable old car. Thank goodness for me:rolleyes:

Bottom line, they may be way more refined, but no matter what anyone says, you can build a pt-ing car that will out brake, corner, and accelerate a gtr, it just takes desire and financial ability.

The bolded language demonstrates the difference between theory and actual experience.

Oh lord here we go. Feel free to educate me out of your own person extensive experience measuring the performance of gtr's with pt-ing cars. :catfight: the op obviously was just musing via a broad generalization type question anyway. Relax. :mock:

I feel like you have to address the reliability, noise, and comfort if you're answering that question in it's entirety - obviously you can build ANY car to outperform X, the question is at what cost/compromise?

A Camaro like Big Red would probably "beat" a GT-R in a question of pure performance, but it's really not "beating" the GT-R with all things considered.

At the end of the day I think the main point is that if you're trying to build a car to drive like a GT-R, you're better off just buying a GT-R.

I obviously could do that but won't bore you with the details :) but suffice it to say in a broad generalization kind of way the answer is pretty conclusive. Until we go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove a point by suggesting a cost no object PT can can beat a GTR hands down provided the GTR is bone stock with a flat tire.

If you know anything about me you know that Big Red is one of my favourite cars and a strong influence on my build back in the day. Big Red could beat a GTR in top speed (the fastest GTR that I personally know of maxed out at 203 in the mile whereas Big Red has gone 234 in the mile and a half) but that would have to be your only metric. Unless you want to suggest Big Red could beat the GTR in top speed with it's current gearing and setup, could beat the GTR in acceleration with a change in rear end and suspension, could beat the GTR with an engine and transmission and rear end change on the road course, and could be the GTR on the autocross with a slightly newer version of the car :G-Dub: provided that the GTR was stock and couldn't change anything but tire pressure.

I don't want to come off as a GTR fanboi - I would say that the same could be applied to a 'vette, a viper or any modern 911 with a G and a number in its name.

In the end, you can't beat modern technology, and aerodynamics. I remember talking to Mark before Optima, when the Red car and Danny Popp in the white C6 were going to throw down. Remember saying physics are a bitch, can't throw a ball as easy or acurate as you can a dart. Still nothing cooler then old iron that performs almost as well, and takes the win from time to time. Much rather watch a vintage car run a road course then any new car.

:idea:

Instead of setting out to build a PT car to one-up a GTR.......buy a good complete PT car and a GTR and just drive the wheels off them. You'd be money ahead and have a lot more fun. :D

I own two Stielow built Camaro's. Jackass has a LS9 tweaked and Mayhem has a 427 LS9 on Steroids. I also own a 2011 Porsche Turbo S. Neither of those cars will beat the Turbo S and both cost more than the Turbo S. The Turbo S will run 10.70's all day long with my Mom driving it if she were still alive. A million factors, weight, aero, traction control etc make it very hard for one of our old cars to all around compete with the top modern stuff.

That's really the point of all of this. Last year at OLOA there were six of us in Vintage American plus a Factory 5 Daytona coupe and they ran us as on run group whenever they could. I don't know how many people were on the fence cheering for the GTRs but I do know that when Vintage was running everyone who wasn't racing was there, cheering us on. It was really cool and most folks remarked that it was something that you just never see and may never see again. That's the reward at the end of the day.

Good discussion.... They are completely different trips no matter how you slice it. If you want easy, comfortable, and reliable, go buy a car that everybody and his Mom can own. If you want something unique, raw, and cool, build a PT car. Just don't expect anywhere close to the refinement that millions of dollars of engineering nets you in a factory piece. It's really all subjective. What you think is suitable is ridiculous to the next guy. It plays out on this board constantly. You see Darrel and his other brother Darrel building race cars. (Dave & Rob) Then you see guys like Stielow and Jay in New Hampshire building super nice and refined PT cars. If I was to have another PT car, I'd choose the latter. Otherwise, I'd just build a race car.

Good points Charley.....


I've said it before on here - I've tracked the R8 and the Mustang.... I'll take the Mustang all day every day. The R8 was boring. Lovely... and all that... but boring.

Big Red is THE Camaro but it would win 1 out of 20 individual events/competitions against a bone stock GTR, unfortunately.

THIS the pure beauty of it all.

Queue the ironic contradiction and the foreshadowing.

Many people are still really enjoying (and :bang:) trying to build something that is a balance of both and that really only makes sense in their eyes. Or not.

Todd, you built a slow PT car once already. Do something different would ya? :lol:

Agreed - good discussion for the most part.

You guys are pretty smart. :idea:

I hope PT cars and some of those ponycar race cars out there start incorporating easy to use in car 'voice to text' systems.

:G-Dub:

:sarcasm_smiley:

Over the course of a year when you're in the mood to go on a spirited drive which car gets driven the most?

FWIW

Every geek with money has a GT-R. They're boring, senseless, have no character, and are cookie-cutter cutting edge engineering.

Imagine you are 9 years old at cars and coffee. Do you like the awesome Camaro with all the custom stuff, or the GT-R that looks like the 30 other black-editions with a bunch of nerds with square rim glasses and Tony&Guy haircuts?

We have a lot of clients at my work that have GT-R's and it's the same thing, they're bored with driving a computer.

Right - but I'm not specifically using Big Red as THE one and only car, I'm suggesting it as an example of what is possible.

My point is that you can take literally ANY car, and through money, time, and a whole lot of work, build it to do X better than a new performance car - but that in the big picture, it isn't really comparable.

If I had the money and knowledge, I'd be willing to bet that I could build up 96' Caprice to spank a stock 911 Turbo around Laguna Seca. It wouldn't even be remotely streetable, and would probably resemble a NASCAR with doors, but my point is that I could do it at a very significant compromise and cost. Lose almost all drivability and comfort in exchange for track performance.

Which again comes back around to my conclusion - they aren't reasonably comparable overall, and the "winner" is based purely on what combination of metrics you choose to look at.