There are just some days that it must be great to work at Motor Trend. It’s a safe bet that the day you get to drag race a Corvette ZR1, Nissan GT-R, Ferrari 599 GTB, and Porsche GT2 would be one of those days. Watch as pure horsepower dominates over a long, straight track run.


What do you think?
Show Comments


  (619) posted on 11.3.2010

GTR is heavier than the 3 because of the electronic Transmission and AWD Drive train, also it has lesser HP than the 3 unit because of the Enhancements of the ZR1 and GT2 well lets not include the Ferrari of course.

  (1211) posted on 11.2.2010

Doesn’t the ZR1 already have this? Some expensive coating that was somewhere around 70G per gallon. It was always protected, was it not?

  (206) posted on 11.2.2010

Yeap, sometimes I too am sorry I believe in facts. Ignorance is bliss and it could be so nice being dumb.

  (206) posted on 11.2.2010

And lastly, fun.

You can compare the lap times but how often will I do that? In NEITHER car will I go as fast as the pro driver. If I go to a track I will not be racing. Why will I be at the track? It is FUN. At least in the ZR1 it will be.
The GT-R is so electronically controlled it take away from the driving experience. So does the weight and AWD.
I want RWD, manual, and as little aids as possible.

So if I was to spend my money on a fun and fast car that works great on the street, it would be a Z06 Carbon.

  (206) posted on 11.2.2010

The GT-R may cost $25,000 less at the dealership BUT that is because they cut costs in important areas.
Let’s say you spend that saved cash on a Switzer tune. Now you have a car with comparable performance for the same price. Now, a year down the road you are going to fork out $20,000 for a transmission. Now you have spent much more than the ZR1.

Even if you don’t get the Switzer tune you will have to pay a lot for the mechanical problems that the GT-R will give you.
So not only is the car slower than the ZR1 but it will cost you more in the long run.

  (206) posted on 11.2.2010

If the GT-R had 638hp it would cost over $200,000.
The GT-R Spec V has 40hp more and costs double the price.

Now, the GT-R’s that Nissan has been using in tests like this produce 580hp. If the Spec V makes 40hp more that would make it 620hp. Pretty close to 638hp.
And the fastest Spec V Nurburgring time is 7:34.

Then consider that the GT-R was driven by a professional driver with a lot of seat time. The ZR1 was driven by an engineer. Put the GT-R driver in and it will get around 7:20.

  (247) posted on 11.2.2010

I wouldn’t consider it cheating, since the upgrades will be made right across the board. Plus Mizuno already said that the car will continuously be developed and improved. If other manufacturers adopted this approach too, we’d all be better off in cars that are more thoroughly sorted out.

  (247) posted on 11.2.2010

I thought these cars with the exposed carbon fiber, were already clear coated with a highly expensive coating that rejects UV light.

Uncia  (868) posted on 11.1.2010


I rarely agree with aPACKofWEASELS on anything, but he has a point here.

Neither the GT-R or the ZR1 have particularly good reliability ratings, but the ZR1’s problems are primarily with its electrical system and not its powertrain, unlike the GT-R. If a sports car’s transmission is so faulty that you can’t even use the car for what it’s meant for, there’s a serious problem. And if you consider 30K miles to substantiate a reliability claim, then you have no concept of what long-term, real-world reliability actually is.

In regards to your comments that the GT-R is a track car and handles better than the "drag racer with an upgraded suspension" ZR1, then consider this: The ZR1 ties the GT-R in a slalom (73.4 mph) and beats it on the skidpad (1.04g vs 1.01g).

The trunk space is more usable in the GT-R? The GT-R has 9 cubic ft of cargo room; the Vette has 22. Check your numbers.

If you’re going to argue bang-for-the-buck, then naturally the roughly $30K cheaper GT-R is going to shine, but to say that the GT-R is a superior sports car is simply a statement of opinion and has no factual foundation. The ZR1 is more fuel efficient, has more cargo room and a more comfortable ride, accelerates faster, handles as well in some maneuvers and notably better in others, has a higher mechanical reliability rating, a better warranty, and most importantly has a faster Nurburgring time. Irrespective of price, the only thing that the GT-R has to offer over the ZR1 is a pair of rear seats.

The only GT-R which has yielded a quicker ‘Ring time than the ZR1 is the Japanese-exclusive Spec.V model, which if you’re going to talk about price is the equivalent of roughly $70K more than the ZR1.

Uncia  (25) posted on 11.1.2010

There’s always something wrong with what apackofweasels says.

Uncia  (233) posted on 11.1.2010

pack of weasels theres a few things wrong with your statement. the GT-R has had tranny problems but probably from inexperienced drivers. Car and drivers long term test car had over 30k miles driven aggressively to say the least with plenty of launches and they’ve had no tranny problems read it. also the GT-R weighs in hundreds of pounds more than the zr-1 close to 800lbs i think and has nearly 150 hp less. the zr-1 may be faster around a track by an experienced driver but i’d love to see you duplicate anything relatively close to the records time at the ring where as any decent driver in a GT-R could come close. to its record... not to mention the GT-R has a back seat, and actually an interior you could live with on a daily basis. i’m sorry but chevy interiors all period. The trunk space is actually usable in the GT-R as well and its what 25k cheaper or more? throw that into a switzer tune or one of the many other companies working with GT-R’s which would include a tranny upgrade and a GT-R would walk all over the vette any day still weighing hundreds of pounds more. The zr-1 has amazing acceleration once it gets traction but how often does anyone drive 180mph on a track. the GT-R is a focused track car not a drag racer with some upgraded suspension.

Uncia  (206) posted on 10.31.2010

"What if the gtr had 638 hp?"

Well, the ones used in performance tests had about 580hp. They STILL lost to the RWD ZR1.
Try a production version with 480hp.

If it did have 638hp it would still beat the ZR1 out of the hole but lose in the long run. Or lose in a rolling start.
What else would happen is the transmission and engine would go much sooner.

Uncia  (206) posted on 10.31.2010

The GT-R is the best bang for the buck if you don’t factor in reliability and the actual bang.

Reliability: The transmissions don’t last. Even after the deleted the launch control they still had problems.

Bang: It is boring. You sit there and let the electronics do all the work. And the car weighs way too much. The bang is the driving experience and the GT-R doesn’t provide it.

Uncia  (612) posted on 01.4.2010

I can’t believe that they smoke the GT-R! i think this race is nonsense GT-R will not lose.

AK47  (1024) posted on 11.13.2008

I laughed at the comment of Motor Trends F1 racer Thays or whatever his name is. Heres a man who has driven rear driven F1 cars for all his life and in a comparison test where three of the cars were rear driven, he chose to critize the GT-Rs handling. What did he expect, oversteer with an AWD car?

The only car in this test I remember beating the GT-Rs lap time( where it really matters) is the ZR1 at the Nurburgring. Bad handling? More like a clueless driver who still hasn’t mastered driving an AWD car.

I don’t care if he is a F1 driver, hes still a dumba$$.

Car Finder: