iansw

iTrader: (7)

My car is exactly 277hp at the wheel - does that mean I should run 12's stock!? - Oh wait, there's that torque thing...darn.

MAX2000JP

Honestly you need to quit posting anymore on this subject matter before you get owned. Skid pad is useless, slalom is the number to look at. The Cobra R will get worked by an Elise in the slalom and on a short course, where handling matters. As for the GT2, you honestly think the Cobra R is a better handling car????

SteVTEC

This is correct. If anything, slalom times are much more relevant to road racing than skidpad, because of what you mentioned above. Slalom will account for overall stability, weight transfer, etc. Lap times on an actual race course are the most relevant of all.

Skidpad only really matters if your only turns are long sweepers that are a 1/4 mile long. Like in NASCAR

SteVTEC

There's also that AWD thing

iansw

iTrader: (7)

I just realized I said "should I run 12's stock" - that was silly - I'm definately not stock!

Oh yeah - stupid AWD....

SteVTEC

CarTest2000 with extrapolated dyno curves (based on 270 awhp, which is the only dyno I saw for a stock one) showed it running 12.7 @ 109

Street Reeper

Car and Driver was the one who said that the Cobra handled better than the GT2. When I looked up the stats it showed that the lateral G was higher for the cobra, I was guessing that this is why they said that. Couldn't find any slalom times.

So rapid cars is suspect to faulty times? What about supercars, they list the same 13.7 as the time for the skyline. I wouldn't trust plugging in some numbers into a 1/4 mile calculator especially when your guessing the hp because of the japan agreement.

SteVTEC

Just because one car has a higher skidpad than another does not even remotely allow you to conclude that it handles better than the other. There is MUCH more to handling than the skidpad numbers. Try slalom speeds. Try lap times on actual road courses.

Then that's the same crappy time as the other site, and in no way realistic or representative of what the car is really capable of.

Guessing? I'm not guessing. I'm scientifically calculating from ACTUAL DYNO CHARTS based on the known FACT that AWD manual drivetrains lose about 25% of their power.



Oh BTW, here's my 1/4 mile calculator. Its accuracy is only limited to how precisely you can get the data entered into it.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_1.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_2.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_3.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_4.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_5.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_6.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_7.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_8.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/stevte...Test2000_9.jpg

BTW, in case you didn't know, you can safely subtract a second off of an AWD manual's best possible 1/4 mile time if it's granny launched. A WRX runs low-14's launched HARD, but only low-15's with more mild and clutch friendly launches.

Same thing with a Skyline. With a 2000rpm slip launch it only ran a 13.7, but still at 109. With a drop clutch from 4000rpm (turbo spooled), it runs a full second better. This 13.7 time that you had was seriously granny launched. The car is capable of *MUCH* faster ET's than that.

Street Reeper

R34 Specifications as tested by Road and Track
February 1999

Horsepower 277 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque 293 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

Acceleration

0-40 mph 2.7
0-60 mph 5.2
0-80 mph 8.7
0-100 mph 13.0

0-1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.7 @ 103.5 mph

Braking

From 60 mph 120 ft
From 80 mph 204 ft

Handling

200 ft skidpad 0.89 g
700 ft slalom 60.8 mph

Fuel Economy

Normal Driving 22.8 mpg



R33 specifications as tested by Car and Driver
December 1995

Horsepower 276 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque 271 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

Acceleration

0-40 mph 2.7
0-60 mph 5.3
0-80 mph 9.1
0-100 mph 12.9

0-1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.0 @ 104 mph

Braking

From 70 mph 159 ft

Handling

300 ft skidpad 0.94 g


Here's the link, thats three sources against a 1/4 mile calculator that 'estimates' times.


http://www.nissanskyline.info/skylin...ifications.htm

SteVTEC

Big deal. You are "mag racing". Do mags always produce the most accurate times? No. According to mags, a 2002 6spd Maxima can only run 14.8s, which is slower than a TL-S. Do you believe that crap? That was published in C&D. Some other garbage import mag tested it at 14.9, yet another sh!tty time.

Nevermind the fact that almost everybody here with that same car has been able to get significantly better times in the low/mid-14 range. Several have gotten 14.3 completely stock, which is over a half second faster.

Mag numbers don't prove anything. They are just data points, which may or may not be typical, nor even representative for the car tested.

SteVTEC

BTW, here is how I was able to reproduce these times in CarTest.

Slip launch from 2000rpm (off-boost, non-optimal)
Slower shift times (granny like, slower than automatic)
Shift at 8000rpm redline (optimal shift point is more like 7000rpm)

That was enough to slow the car down from 12.7 @ 109 to 13.7-14.0 @ 104. Since these cars are so rare, chances are that the mags "borrowed" them from a private owner and really seriously didn't want to break it or push it and PO the owner. If it's a car that Nissan of North America gives them and tells them to go beat the crap out of, the numbers can change a bit.

All of the mags say that a 98-02 Accord V6 (my ex car) would do the 1/4 mile in 15.8s. I thought the car was for some reason faster than a 00-01 Maxima because "mags" only listed 16.0-16.2 for the Maxima. But in my two years at Honda sites, NOBODY, not a SINGLE PERSON, has EVER been able to get a sub-16 1/4 mile time out of a stock Accord V6. More like 16.1-16.3, even on cold days. Maxima's on the otherhand can run much better than 16.1. More like 15.5-15.6, completely stock.

When I saw that, that's when I stopped placing any relevance on mag times.

Street Reeper

OK so will slalom speeds be sufficient?

http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/cobrarinfo.html
Cobra - 69.3

http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/gt2info.html
GT2 - 68.1

So it's right in front of you, like I said Car and Driver reported that the cobra out handled the GT2. I was guessing it was lateral G specs that they got this from, but you could say that it is slalom speeds too.

So after all the talk about slalom speeds, do you now think that the Cobra out handles a GT2. I really don't see where all the aggresion was coming from, especially if you didn't research it, and instead said it's a skyline it has to be faster, or it's a porsche it has to handle better.

Street Reeper

I figure someone who has actually taken the car out and ran it would be a better indicator than a computer program that you plug numbers into and it produces a figure.

I would love to test the cars myself but I don't have that luxury, all I can do is review figures of people who actually have.

SteVTEC

Dude, the computer program is based on REAL WORLD PHYSICS. Did you even look at the screen captures and see the HUNDREDS of parameters in there?

Who's to say that any old joe that goes and takes his car out is automatically going to get the best possible time for his particular car. Hell, if I spent $80k or whatever on an R34 from Motorex, I am *NOT* going to be doing clutch drops on that thing because any part you break has to be imported from overseas to fix, and I hope either you or someone you knew could do the work, too.

You can test any car you want for nearly nothing. Go to www.cartest2000.com and buy CarTest for $40. If you just want a rough idea of how a car will perform, use the published specs and estimated power curves for any of the 1400 cars in there (Maxima's and Skylines included). If you want to get even more accurate, go find a stock dyno that somebody put on some forum (FREE), enter it in, and you'll be able to get extremely accurate performance data for just about any car out there.

I raced an Acura CL-S once from 0-80 mph in my 99 5spd. I beat them by about a car and a half. CarTest backed that up almost exactly, and it's been nearly dead-on accurate in almost every other comparison I've done.

SteVTEC

But a GT2 consistently puts down better track times at Nürburgring than any Mustang has (Cobra, Cobra R, whatever). N-ring, BTW, is widely considered the most challenging road circuit in the world with lots of sharp turns, twists, bumps, corners with hidden apexes, etc. Many manufacturers do their suspension and handling tuning here for their production cars.

A buddy of mine is big into Porsches and road circuit racing and would back me up on this with actual stats and figures. Unfortunately he lives in North Carolina and is digging himself out of the ice right now.

Street Reeper

WELL DUHHHHHHH, a porsche GT2 is way faster than a cobra R, of course it's going to get around a track faster even if it has a slight disadvantage in the handling department. I'm not a domestic junky, I was only pointing out that the cobra outhandles the GT2, no way would I say that it would lose on a track, it's way faster. I would rather have the porsche, it's a better track car because it's speed makes up for any advantage a cobra would have on it.

Not trying to be a **** but the last five minutes of my life were very stressed, people where flaming on me for statments that were true, I just had to find the info. And as you can see their isn't a big outpooring of apologies by those people, I knew that I would get flamed for a very interesting fact, but not that bad.

My point was that domestic cars don't all handle bad. Not that domestics beat everything. A cobra beating a GT2 in handling is somthing interesting that not many people would believe (as evident from the posts)

Street Reeper

The same people (Car and Driver, as well as Road and Track) tested the camaroes and mustanges, you could say that they didn't use those cars to their full potential either. Either way the same people doing the same test on different cars, is a good way to standardize performance stats. Whether they push the cars to their full potential I would agree is suspect, but they test all the cars the same. The stats may not be a good reprisentation of what the car can do after some practice, but it does give you a good idea of what cars are running what with the same driver and conditions.

thnikkamax

iTrader: (2)

Hmm... I'm not familiar with slalom speeds, but wouldn't it be much better to have slalom times instead of speeds.

Like car and driver saying that for the 1/4 the 2k2 Max vs. CL-S ran 97mph and 94mph respectively? Oh wait, but they both had a time of 14.7 secs.

I'm not sure, but i would think the slalom indicator should be times. Maybe like the slaloms in skiing where the winner isn't necessarily the fastest one going into the finish line, just that he made a lot of god time in the beginning. Maybe i'm misinformed...i dunno.

Street Reeper

A slalom is a car weaving in and out of cones

How fast you can go through the slalom is a direct indicator of the cars handling potential. A car couldn't get up to speed if it was sliding all over the place (as would be represented by a lateral G) or if it's suspension was soft which caused a lot of body roll. Either way the speed that was achieved through the slalom would be an indicator of how much control the car has, by how fast it can go while still maintaining stability.

Has anyone changed their minds, or is it the old it's a Porsche GT2 that costs over 100,000, compared to a mustange, the GT2 has to handle better.

I personally have no loyalties to any car manufacturer or company. I only like cars for what they are and how they perform. If a Kia was fast and handled well I would be the first to praise it. I just don't understand this conflict within the auto enthusiast community that is so biased to cars because of their manufacter.

SteVTEC

So basically what you're saying is that a Cobra R only handles better on paper. But when it comes to real roads and real world handling conditions, the GT2 is still better.



N-ring, BTW, is not a horsepower track. It only really has one long straightaway where you can stay flat out for awhile and get up to some serious speeds, but beyond that it is really mostly a handling track. Hence, lots of manufacturers test and develop their handling at the N-ring. A GT2 wouldn't beat a Cobra R at N-ring because it has more power. It beats it because overall it handles better.

No, people were flaming you for stating that something is true because of a stat that you posted up, when the stat itself wasn't even very relevant in the first place.

And a Cobra R beating a GT2 in handling is also a false statement, given the Nürburgring times of the two cars, on a course that is almost all handling oriented.

Being faster on paper is nice, but it's the real-world performance that counts.

Your typical skidpad and slalom courses are perfectly flat and smooth. It's possible for a car with a cheap and inferior suspension setup to get good skidpad and slalom times and lead you to believe that it really does handle good.

But what happens when the going gets rough?

A car with an inferior suspension setup, even if it is capable of good slalom/skidpad numbers, can quickly become unsettled and get out of shape, causing the driver to back off and lose precious time around a track. A Porsche GT2 on the otherhand has one of the most advanced suspension systems in the world. You can throw a lot at the car and it'll still remain settled and able to perform at near its peak. There are corners where your typical musclecar would have to lift, yet the GT2 could remain flat through and go significantly faster into the next turn.

Nürburgring is not exactly a glass smooth track. It's extremely challenging and will give even the best cars on the planet a thorough workout. A car that can handle well there and put down good track times will be able to handle good ANYWHERE, even on rough roads. On the otherhand, a car with an inferior suspension setup may still be able to put down comparable skidpad/slalom times to a GT2, but there's no way in hell it'll get around the N-ring as fast, even with more power.

This is the difference between a Porsche 911/GT2 and your typical musclecars

Street Reeper

Are you serious? A porsche GT2 is much faster to 60 or 100 or 150 then a cobra. Even if the cobra beat it around the corner, the GT2 would still be able to accelrate much faster coming out of that corner. It's faster it doesn't have any thing to do with handling.
Case in point - I used to race motocross and would frequent many motorcycle races. On one such occasion their was a guy riding a CBR 900 with an aftermarket turbo. He was racing against various kawaskies, and Hondas. Because he had so much power he kept it real slow around the corners, and would only punch it when he got out of them. Everyone would pass him around the first few corners, but as soon as he got out and floored it he would pass everyone. After a while he had made so much time from his acceleration between corners that everyone was behind him. Now I wouldn't say that his bike handled better because he was obviously taking it very slow in the corners, the only reason he was always winning is because is bike could drasctically make up for that time even if it wasn't a straight away and just a short sprint to another corner.

The paragraph that says a muscle car with inferior suspension would get out of shape, It would get out of shape on the slalom if it was going to get of out of shape. Thats exactly the point of the slalom. The cobra has a higher speed through the slalom, in wouldn't be able to do this if it had body roll, or was unballanced.

and yes I was getting flamed for my statemnt that a GT2 doesn't handle as well as a Cobra R, check Skylines repsponse, and Max2000, Maximam was the only one who was critsizing my refference material.

A cobra R does handle better than a GT2, thats all

On a track a GT2 is much faster in acceration so it can make up time with ease

I hope you wouldn't say that a civic that handles a little better than a Viper should win on a track.

Because it sounds like your saying that a cobra R that handles a little better than a GT2 (but is much slower) should win on a track

Does that make since?

SteVTEC

Your comparison is irrelevant. Apples to celery, as F23A4 put it before

Bikes are much more nimble and agile than a car, and this bike you're talking about probably had nearly DOUBLE the power to weight ratio as the other bikes. The GT2 and Cobra R are probably within 10-20% of each other in terms of power-to-weight. On a track that is almost all handling, that 10-20% means nothing.

You've missed the point. The slalom courses are all nearly pefectly smooth and flat. It's possible to have good "paper" slalom performance, even with a less sophisticated suspension system. But in the REAL WORLD, on rough roads, with bumps in them that are not perfectly flat, a highly sophisticated suspension system that is finely tuned like that in the GT2 will STILL be able to maintain the majority of its performance, in spite of bumps, road irregularities, and other things. A less sophisticated system, even though it performs equal on "paper" will quickly fall behind.

My Maxima SE 5spd will "handle" better on the skidpad and slalom than my Accord V6 would, by far. But because of the crappy beam suspension in the Maxima, as soon as you hit bumps that sucker gets all out of shape with the rear end hopping around and becomes completely unstable. My Accord V6 on the otherhand, would run circles around my Maxima in the bumpy stuff because all 4 tires stay solidly glued to the ground, no matter what you throw at it.

The twisty, turny, bumpy, construction riddled sections of the DC beltway are a fine example. My maximum comfortable speed in the Maxima is around 80 mph. Anything faster and you are seriously asking for trouble. My maximum comfortable speed in the Accord was well over 90 mph. Stayed planted no matter what.

Guess which one has much better skidpad and slalom numbers.

You guess it...the Maxima

On paper maybe, but not in the real-world, but believe what you want. I've already stated why this is not true.

This would be true on a "horsepower" track where there are lots of long straights where you stay flat footed. N-ring is once again, **NOT** one of these tracks.

http://www.nuerburgring.de/

There's really only one straightaway. On the entire rest of the course, it doesn't matter how much horsepower you have. The limiting factor is going to be how well your suspension setup can handle all sorts of bumps, road irregularities, and pretty much anything else you can think to throw at it. The fact that a GT2 has more power than a Cobra R at the N-ring is irrelevant. The GT2 gets around the track faster because it handles better in the REAL WORLD and its suspension system is more sophisticated, and better able to handle whatever planet Earth happens to throw at it.

Do you have any concept of what a handling track is? A handling track is where it doesn't matter how much horsepower you have. Your times around the track will be limited by how well your car can handle and how well you can drive, regardless of how much power you have. All you need is enough horsepower to keep up with the handling capabilities of your car - anything beyond that is not helpful.

I have a video of a C5 Vette chasing an S2000 at a very twisty and turny handling track. The Vette clearly has more power, but because it can't handle as well, the S2000 just kept pulling away. There were no straights long enough on the track for the Vette to really utilize all of its power.

The S2000 handled excellent and only had 240HP. The C5 didn't handle as well and had 350HP. But because it did not handle as well, all of that extra power was wasted and was meaningless. The limiting factor was the handling capabilities.

Hopefully you will get it out of your head that mag stats are the defining be-all and end-all numbers to judge cars with. They're just data points. 0-60 is meaningless if you race to 70. 1/4 mile is meaningless if you only race to 1/8th mile. Skidpad is meaningless unless you're going around extremely large steady-state turns. Slalom is meaningless if the roads are extremely bumpy with lots of irregularities, as is common in the REAL WORLD.

But these are all "mag stats" by which cars are judged. People just think these are the "golden" and defining numbers for cars, but there really is so much more to it than that

Street Reeper

Your measure of testing a cars handling is wrong. If both cars were equal in acceleration and braking, and the only independent variable was handling, then yes, the car that got around the track first would be the one that handled better.

But when comparing the GT2 to a Cobra you have many variables that do not correlate. There is no way that you could make an assumption about a cars handling just from track times, especially if it's two different cars. Track racing is much more than handling, it's acceleration, braking, and handling. Say two cars accelerate and handle the exact same, but one has better brakes, that car would win and it would be the brakes that gave it the advantage, not because of the handling.

Slalom speeds are independent. It doesn't matter how fast a car can accelerate, or it's top speed. The car can only reach a speed that it's suspension can handle regardless of how fast it gets there.

If you wanted to test the handling of a cobra R against a GT2, you would have to match all other variables. You would have to tune both cars so that braking and acceleration are the exact same, so that the only variable would be handling, can you not see that?? You can't say that a car handles better than another just by it's track figures, who's to say it's not the braking and acceleration that gave it the advantage. Handling is not the only variable of track racing.

The best way to test a cars handling is slalom and lateral G, that is what is used period.

Your grasping at straws here, the cobra handles better than the GT2, because of standard tests that eliminate any advantage of braking, top speed, or acceleration any car may have over the other.

2001STANG

Wow this is getting kinda crazy the Gt2 outhandles the cobra R yes but not as badly as some of you think. I think people arent that fammilar with the R because hell theres less then 300 of them. The R is the best handling mustang ever produced it would really shock you. I think some people are just assuming well it must not be able to handle because its a domestic car, but nobody in there right mind thinks the R outhandles the Gt2.

Street Reeper

Why just because it's a porsche. Did you read the posts. I posted where you could find figures for the cobra R and GT2 slaloms, and lateral G's


http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/cobrarinfo.html
Cobra - 69.3

http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/gt2info.html
GT2 - 68.1

Yes it is hard to believe, but that doesn't make it false. I have provided the proof that the automotive industry uses at it's standards when comparing handling. Car and Driver said it, and I'm saying it because the fact is that the cobra handles better than the Porsche.

akrus

iTrader: (1)

For the love of all that burns fossil fuels, would one of the 82 org moderators:

BURY THIS THREAD!!!!!



No one believes things they read, no one believes things others tell them about, yet I'm willing to bet that VERY few on the org have even driven a Cobra R, let alone a GT2 on the track.

Both domestic and import have their benefits/flaws. My Camaro was easily as reliable as my 2k2 Max (other than the headers melting the plug wires weekly) The Maxima has the power to seduce women about as well as a drunk octopus.

I'm older now, the Max makes sense. If I bought a Camaro again, I'd ship it to Lingenfelter and become 18 again.

Albert

SteVTEC

So are these two tests 100% effective and a foolproof way to measure how a car handles?

Nope.

You said yourself that there are a lot of varaibles, and you're right. There's so much more to it than simple skidpad and slalom times when it comes to handling.

Any reply on my Accord vs Maxima handling comments? I didn't think so

I'm grasping at straws? No, I'm grasping at reality. You're still stuck in the magazine stats

But victory is not measured on magazine stats. It's measured by how quickly you can get around a track. At N-ring, victory is measured almost exclusively by how well your car can handle.

Just for kicks I fired up the Lap Time Comparison in CarTest2000 for these two cars at the N-ring.

The SVT Cobra R was 18.6 seconds behind a GT2 with stock power. Exactly matching the power-to-weight ratios at 520HP on the Cobra R, it was still 4.2 seconds behind a GT2. I kicked the power up to 600HP, the the Cobra R finally beat the GT2 by a second.

You're right, braking is involved, and acceleration is involved, but the N-ring is almost purely a handling track.

Sometimes a car is greater than the sum of its individual parts or stats.

akrus

iTrader: (1)

Steve Have you driven Nurburgring?

Albert

Street Reeper

Were both cars new? Did you test the lateral skid and slalom while they were in the condition they were in? Did you compare those numbers.

It sounds like your talking about rebound of the shocks, which on a slalom would effect body role.

Test both cars on the road like you did, but then test them on the slalom. The cars tested in the magazines were both new, the ones you tested were not and had different wear and tear on them.

Your talking about two different cars that you have no idea what their slalom results are. Your max would not perform like the one tested, neither would your accord, to test wear and tear put em on the slalom, then take them out to the road. I would bet your accord with better rebound would have a higher slalom speed then your max, regardless of what they tested like new.

By the way, I have started a new thread on this subject, I really don't know how to judge handling now, because no one seems to except the road tests for them in this comparo, it will be interesting to see what others think.

Skyline

Actually you should do some research. That 13.7s time is from R&T test and for the details on those tests search newsgroups. Everyone else tests the R32, R33 and R34 in the high 12s. For example this R33 V-Spec: http://sami.kallio.com/skyline/sivu6.jpg
Typical. Since when does lateral accelaration measure handling? Stupid question really since it doesn't.

SteVTEC

There is much more to handling than just maximum skipad G's on a perfectly smooth/flat skidpad, and maximum slalom speed on a perfectly smooth/flat slalom course.

These numbers are nice, and they are certainly a metric that you cna use to judge handling, but unfortunately they don't reflect a car's handling capabilities over more REALISTIC tracks/roads that have bumps, dips, and lots of irregularities, as is common in the real world.

When C&D or whoever says a Cobra R handles better than a GT2, they mean just on their skidpad/slalom tets. If these tests were 100% accurate and effective, that would translate to actual roads as well, but this is not the case.

I know for a fact that the suspension system in the GT2 is so well tuned that even over very irregular roads, you can maintain nearly all of the handling performance that that car can generate. But not so on the Cobra R. How well can it run the slalom and how many G's can it pull while also handling road irregularities. Not nearly as well as the GT2.

Again, the tests are nice, but they do not translate directly from paper to actual roads. If all roads were perfectly smooth and flat like they are in the skidpad/slalom tests, then a Cobra R just might have something on a GT2 in the handling department

Just like any other automotive stat, the numbers you see only give you an idea or a hint of how a car will really perform in the real world. But never EVER do they tell the whole story.

Street Reeper

When I compare cars I compare them at the same place to get standardized times. If I wanted to compare a skyline to say a Z06 I would have the same people compare then judge which is faster by the results. I wouldn't have someone run one car in alaska, and compare that to someone who runs another car in california because altitude and temp are variables that need to be standardized when comparing runs. Doesn't mean these track times are the best you could get, but comparitivly their usefull to judge a cars performance compared to others as long as it's the same people doing the tests.
Just like the G-tech pro. It may not give the most accurate numbers, but it will give you base numbers that you can work to improve. When you imporve those numbers you know that you have improved your performance.

I also posted slalom speeds if you would have looked through the thread. The cobra posts higher numbers.

SteVTEC

BTW, just for reference to others...

400m = 1312 ft, which is pretty much directly comparable to the US 1/4 mile of 1320 ft.

The 12.759 for the Skyline in that article is almost exactly what I got in CarTest, indicating that the car really does have well in excess of the advertised 277 bhp

Street Reeper

I don't agree about bumps in the track throwing off real world situations because that would be a function of rebound of the shocks, this is tested by the slalom by how well a car can bring itself back to center while making multiple turns.

But this is getting old, so I will just say

OK so the cobra R handles better than the GT2 on standard tests used by automotive enthusists to test handling.

In real world situations we don't know because the Porsche has an accleration advantage over the cobra R and that could constitute a better track time.

And N-bring is not a handling only track. If you went around it in a stock max, then put a Y-pipe and intake on that same max I would expect it to pull a little better time. If you don't agree you should tell those autocrossers to stop waisting their money on superchargers or any other performance enhancement, because the only thing that will provide better track times is suspension and tires.

SteVTEC

I give up on you.

You're thinking is black and white and you're not able to see the whole picture at once, so there's not much more I can do to help you understand.

Skyline

There lies the problem, R&T weren't capable of testing the GT-R to its potential. Just like Tommi Makinen wouldn't be able to get a F1 car to its best time, or Mika Hakkinen getting a WRC car to run on some course throught the woods. The tests were done almost like SteVTEC described, low rpm launches with no wheelspin.

Cars are different and you can't expect the same person that runs good times on a low revving, torque RWD car to run as good in a high revving AWD that needs to be revved high to produce torque. The ones at R&T didn't know how, that is why the times they produced were slow.
Like it has been said, slalom times are done on a even "track" where there are no suprises or differently shaped curves. It takes away the credibility of automotive journalist if the states that one car handles better than the other and without any other explanations refers to slalom and skidpad times.

Chris91SE

iTrader: (1)

MAX2000JP

This thread has gone down the crapper. Reciting magazine times is a joke when comparing handling. And the sources being used are very suspect. At least if you are going to pull mag/internet stats out, use C&D or MT. At the track, where handling is PROVED, the GT2 is a faster car. Why dont you see how quickly that car runs around the Nurburgring? The Cobra R is a good handling Stang, but at the track it gets stomped by a Z06. The Z06 would get beat by a GT2 on a roadcourse, for comparison.

F23A4

All I know is that if I have to stare at the 1980s style dashboard while I'm running 12s or pulling a 1.whateverG skidpad, you can keep that Cobra R. If I had to buy American (thank the Lord I dont have to), I'd just get a Z06!!! Which is about the only domestic car that will have some value after 10 years.

As for the GT2 vs Cobra R comparison. I can guarantee the Cobra R wont have the handling "prowess" of the GT2. (Admittedly, I haven't driven either of these cars. BUT, I know three things: 1) The characteristics of previous Mustangs, 2) The history of Porsche AND 3) the challenge that the Nürburgring ring is.

BTW, a Cobra R on Nürburgring is akin to having SR rated tires on a Ferrari (or NASCAR @ Indy): PURE SACRILEGE!!!

2001STANG

Ok im gonna speak my peace then shut up I know someone personally who has a Cobra R and im willing to bet 10 years from now the R will cost more then the Z06. As i said before theres less than 300 R's. Right now the R usually sales for more now, then it did 3 years ago when it came out. Someone offered him 45,000 for his R and he did not sale it at that price.Its common for them to sale for 45,000+ If youve driven a million mutangs then you still have no idea what the R feels like because its that much different then any other mustang.The only thing it really has in common with other mustangs is it has a pony and a ford symbol on it. I think everyone is commenting on the R thinking its just like every other mustang, but with a R badge and a big wing on it, and thats nowhere near true. All that being said I still think the GT2 has a slight handling advantage over the R.