What does it take to beat an ENZO?

[Sidious]

At the end of the day, people should be realistic about the GT-R, they can be made faster than top-end supercars on some limited aspects, but for what the R32-R35 chassis is, it cannot be completely faster than an Enzo or even a Carrera GT on street tyres.

Same goes for blinkered BMW/Porsche 911/Corvette owners.

[Stachi]

I'm not against Sidious or anyone else here.. But... An Enzo is built to be fast and sporty... If you build a car for the same purpose and its up to an Enzo's level or higher, does it matter if theres a "GT-R" on the back? Or if its a BMW, Mercedes, Lambo, Something? It doesn't matter if it does the Ring in 6:58 or 7:10, these are incredible times that are hard to imposible to achieve by almost anyone of us.

Constant argueing about this and that, what and whatnot is pointless. It's just hiding the facts. My friends EK Civic is ****enfast on the downhill with its overall good balance.. And he's got 300PS less than me..

Marc

[Cris]

Originally Posted by moleman

that you don't have, or have never seen, a 5 minute something lap of the 'Ring.

But that wasn't the point.

I've said that the 5 minutes was incorrect. If someone acknowledges that they are incorrect it's usual to move on. What do you want man blood?

Ahem. Now I've wound my neck in I'll let everyone carry on.

[Cris]

Originally Posted by Stachi

I'm not against Sidious or anyone else here.. But... An Enzo is built to be fast and sporty... If you build a car for the same purpose and its up to an Enzo's level or higher, does it matter if theres a "GT-R" on the back? Or if its a BMW, Mercedes, Lambo, Something? It doesn't matter if it does the Ring in 6:58 or 7:10, these are incredible times that are hard to imposible to achieve by almost anyone of us.

Constant argueing about this and that, what and whatnot is pointless. It's just hiding the facts. My friends EK Civic is ****enfast on the downhill with its overall good balance.. And he's got 300PS less than me..

Marc

I agree. ANY car which has been developed to such a high degree is impressive.

[moleman]

Blood and humble grovelling is good.

lol

[kismetcapitan]

Originally Posted by Sidious

At the end of the day, people should be realistic about the GT-R, they can be made faster than top-end supercars on some limited aspects, but for what the R32-R35 chassis is, it cannot be completely faster than an Enzo or even a Carrera GT on street tyres.

Same goes for blinkered BMW/Porsche 911/Corvette owners.

what's the difference between "partially faster" and "completely faster"? if you're faster, you're faster. w@nker

[Addicted2Boost]

Originally Posted by kismetcapitan

what's the difference between "partially faster" and "completely faster"? if you're faster, you're faster. w@nker

BBAAAAHAHAHAHA, i couldnt have put it better myself!

Technology improves mate.... just becuase the ENZO is a now approacing a million to buy doesnt mean it will reign forever. Just how the F430 Scuderia or whatevr the heck it is, is proven to be quicker than an ENZO around a track... a ferrari testing track at that. And at the ring, GTR is faster than that. But no, thats still not good enough for you, becuase as you said its just on 1 track. But my point exactly, ENZO, even tho it is what it is, it doesnt excel in ALL areas. It can be beaten by cheaper, newer cars or well modified ones. Even through the slalom the standard GTR is faster.

I know a Lambo Murcielago owner that had to fork out $50,000NZD for a transmission problem. I think it was for the clutch for the E-gear. The car had something stuid like less than 10,000km on it. He ended up selling it off for 399,000NZD due to the mounting crazy servicing costs aswell. That is one example of many maintenace issues with exotics, why, even glancing on this this forum ppl are complaining about reliability issues. Shit, for $50 - $60K u could build a bulletproof 700-800hp GTR along with supporting mods, braking and handling package...

Of course nordschleife is not THE only way to determine a cars performance i never said that. And no i havnt driven there or even glanced with my own eyes there. But lets face it, it is becomming well regarded as THE de-facto standard in showing real world capabilities of a car. And people and companies are ever trying to prove the capabilities on THIS test track im guessing due to the mixture it provides, bumpy undulating surfaces, positive and negative cambered corners, hairpins, fast straights, sweepers etc...

Sidious: If you really want to speculate, a Carerra GT will still outlap a 911 Turbo even with a 100 HP 100 KG handycap. The overall package is much much more efficient than the 911 is. It would be outbraked, out maneuvered, and out dragged at higherspeeds, especially around the faster bends.

Its fact now is it, because you said so? Are you sure? hmm, isnt THAT more of a very "opinionated" statement than what i said?? Atleast i had numbers to quote on. A Carrera GT carrying 100KG more than what it is, and taking away 100HP away from it... i guess you should know for a FACT because im guessing you have driven it and own them right? haha

As I mentioned in the beginning paragraph of this post, you seem to dismiss aspects of performance of cars that you will unlikely ever find yourself using, but its amusing you use the nordschleife to rate cars even though you're 95% unlikely to have ever raced or driven on there! lol

I apologise Sidious, no im not as fortunate as u of owning both of these cars, and can only speculate, but becuase you are an owner of both these machines, i guess speculation for u is out of the order? the only thing i can really draw on is again ur hated ring times... Carrera GT has posted a 7.28 by a company driver. Now, why dont u start critising that and get all anal and saying "becuase it was driven by a the company test driver, the time is not believeable and most likely alot slower than it can really achieve" or doesnt that apply in this case because it is a mid-engined exotic with a hefty pricetag? hahahah. But only to a cheap datsun im guessing.

911 turbo does around 7.40 right? So A carrera GT doing a 7.28 and add 100kg and take 100hp away from it... wow i can really see how for SURE it will wouldnt even loose any of its 12 seconds at all.

[Addicted2Boost]

The f430 being faster, yeah u say its only on one track, but it was at the ferrari test track, and dont tell me that the ENZO would have spent no time at all at their own test track in its own development...

[kismetcapitan]

a 612 Scaglietti blew its transmission at 931km. Nine hundred thirty one kilometers on the odo. I saw it. Ferrari is mostly grey market here so that's all out of pocket - no warranty. It cost a LOT to repair.

I don't call that quality, I call that garbage parts. Every work on a Ferrari engine? Everything is light as hell. Good for keeping weight down. Bad for durability. Ever hear the words "bulletproof" and "Italian" used in the same sentence?

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by Addicted2Boost

BBAAAAHAHAHAHA, i couldnt have put it better myself!

Technology improves mate.... just becuase the ENZO is a now approacing a million to buy doesnt mean it will reign forever. Just how the F430 Scuderia or whatevr the heck it is, is proven to be quicker than an ENZO around a track... a ferrari testing track at that. And at the ring, GTR is faster than that. But no, thats still not good enough for you, becuase as you said its just on 1 track. But my point exactly, ENZO, even tho it is what it is, it doesnt excel in ALL areas. It can be beaten by cheaper, newer cars or well modified ones. Even through the slalom the standard GTR is faster.

What this has to do with the F430 Scudera, I dont know. The car nevertheless is another light weight, low COG, midengined car with excellent aerodynamics for a road car and has benefited from recent advances in road/track tyres.

The F430 Scuderia is claimed to be close to the Enzo as this model is very track orientated, it has a good package for many circuits whilst remaining legal for road use.

The R35 GTR hasn't been proven by independent testing to be faster than the Scudera or Enzo on any track. All you have is some claimed Nordschielfe lap time and you are wasting my time reading your weak arguments based on a manufacturer test condition claim.

Of course nordschleife is not THE only way to determine a cars performance i never said that. And no i havnt driven there or even glanced with my own eyes there. But lets face it, it is becomming well regarded as THE de-facto standard in showing real world capabilities of a car. And people and companies are ever trying to prove the capabilities on THIS test track im guessing due to the mixture it provides, bumpy undulating surfaces, positive and negative cambered corners, hairpins, fast straights, sweepers etc...

No it is not the de-facto standard in real world capabilities of a car. For example, you wouldnt/shouldnt be doing 140-160 MPH around a cambered bend in the public road, nor will you be driving the car between slip and grip and riding kerbs to get the best possible speed in Nordschielfe!

Nordschielfe requires good wheel travel and compliant suspension, often low performance cars are tested on this track to measure damper and suspension stiffness performance not outright pace, many high performance cars do this too. What is good for Nordschielfe is not so ideal on other tracks and it can fail miserably on another road/circuit if you setup a car too much this way.

The problem is marketing departments will extrapolate the best laptimes and fool the public about how fast a car can go, every major manufacturer is guilty of this not just Nissan.

Its fact now is it, because you said so? Are you sure? hmm, isnt THAT more of a very "opinionated" statement than what i said?? Atleast i had numbers to quote on. A Carrera GT carrying 100KG more than what it is, and taking away 100HP away from it... i guess you should know for a FACT because im guessing you have driven it and own them right? haha


I apologise Sidious, no im not as fortunate as u of owning both of these cars, and can only speculate, but becuase you are an owner of both these machines, i guess speculation for u is out of the order? the only thing i can really draw on is again ur hated ring times... Carrera GT has posted a 7.28 by a company driver. Now, why dont u start critising that and get all anal and saying "becuase it was driven by a the company test driver, the time is not believeable and most likely alot slower than it can really achieve" or doesnt that apply in this case because it is a mid-engined exotic with a hefty pricetag? hahahah. But only to a cheap datsun im guessing.

911 turbo does around 7.40 right? So A carrera GT doing a 7.28 and add 100kg and take 100hp away from it... wow i can really see how for SURE it will wouldnt even loose any of its 12 seconds at all.

YOU asked me what I think the outcome would be if the Carrera GT had a 100 HP/KG penalty, and I explicitly told you I would speculate (not state as fact) the Carrera would still be faster since it has a better package and more ultimate grip, increased stopping power and lower drag.

Who said it would still be 12 seconds faster?? ..... How about you start reading replies and answers to YOUR questions instead of quickfireing a response to my post because you're too biased and intellectually weak to compose a sensible arguement.

THINK before you try posting in a middle of a discussion, posting what your bowels tells you only shows you are either a silly ricer like kismet is or you are another 14 year old fan boy with just about enough communication skills to order a milkshake from the local mcdonalds

[Addicted2Boost]

Well ur speculation that was given sure is stupid and non-sense.

And thats exactly what i feel about ur arguement and u fail to understand even basic points even when another car is mentioned for example, and just dismiss them due to ur biased view. Every time i say has been recorded, somehow is just bullshit in ur books, or the track is shit, or watever allowing you to fall back on ur weak arguement... in that there is none. Just full of excuses, and maybes and watever. Other ppl on there have also confirmed to you that those times are valid and credible...

Or maybe im just a stupid 14 year old yeah. Hmm, looking at this poll, majority of ppl seem to have a similar opinion... maybe the almost of them are just as stupid to realise your superior way of thinking

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by Addicted2Boost

Well ur speculation that was given sure is stupid and non-sense.

And thats exactly what i feel about ur arguement and u fail to understand even basic points even when another car is mentioned for example, and just dismiss them due to ur biased view. Every time i say has been recorded, somehow is just bullshit in ur books, or the track is shit, or watever allowing you to fall back on ur weak arguement... in that there is none. Just full of excuses, and maybes and watever. Other ppl on there have also confirmed to you that those times are valid and credible...

Or maybe im just a stupid 14 year old yeah. Hmm, looking at this poll, majority of ppl seem to have a similar opinion... maybe the almost of them are just as stupid to realise your superior way of thinking

The fastest circuit and road cars over the past 60 years have the best packaging of mass, low drag, low weight, low COG and the best balance. Mid-engined cars tend to meet these criteria best.

You havent provided any evidence to the contary. You see one laptime on Nordschielfe which IS NOT PROOF, just a MANUFACTURER CLAIM - and you make a song and dance about it in every post.

I dont dismiss proof if it is from a reputable and fair source. Perhaps if you can provide some of this for once then I wont see it as bullshit.

You call me biased? I owned 2 GT-Rs, one which is claimed to lap under 8 minutes at the ring, but I dont believe it. The difference is I dont think they are the fastest things on the planet, which atleast makes me a little more open minded and appreciative of other slower or faster cars that I may or may never be able to drive.

[Addicted2Boost]

The fastest circuit and road cars over the past 60 years have the best packaging of mass, low drag, low weight, low COG and the best balance. Mid-engined cars tend to meet these criteria best.

You havent provided any evidence to the contary. You see one laptime on Nordschielfe which IS NOT PROOF, just a MANUFACTURER CLAIM - and you make a song and dance about it in every post.

I dont dismiss proof if it is from a reputable and fair source. Perhaps if you can provide some of this for once then I wont see it as bullshit.

You call me biased? I owned 2 GT-Rs, one which is claimed to lap under 8 minutes at the ring, but I dont believe it. The difference is I dont think they are the fastest things on the planet, which atleast makes me a little more open minded and appreciative of other slower or faster cars that I may or may never be able to drive.

There you go again imagining things in ur head that was never said. I never said the GTR was the fastest thing, infact i stated that earlier. And like i stated again earlier, i dont deny those factors having an affect. Why dont u read and let it swirl around in ur head before replying?? I am open minded to other cars, do u think i will take a GTR over an ENZO if i was to choose??

Point: u think nothing can come close to exotics, and i say they can. If the so called recorded times are not enough, well it doesnt bother me. But more and more, cars like the late model EVOs, GTRs etc are proving themselves against supercars that cost 5-6 times as much or even more. Especially with little tinkering. Sorry i cant give u solid proof as to be honest, i cant be bothered to find the link and u probably would dismiss it anyway, but the FQ400 EVO 8 MR brick was a few seconds off a the early model Zonda. No i dont know what track etc, but was published in a UK magazine. Be it just blabbering, but with so many examples by the way of forums like these, posted times, magazine reviews, test drives, videos like Best Motoring done by professionals etc, it has proven what is possible.

As i kid i was so intrigued by super cars, haha, esp the countach, the early 90s diablo etc, i bet everyone here remebers those days. I looked up to them and thought nothing could evencome close to the performance it could offer and could not be attained by ur average joe that could not afford it. But even most people that know about cars would certainly agree that the R35GTR or even a moderately worked 1989 R32 GTR will put the countach to shame in most aspects.

So, cars like the GTR came out, cheap and reliable performance out of japan, and with technology it really did re-write the books of what was previously thought not possible, going away from ur tradtional receipie for a supercar to attain performance. With great results. Like u mentioned, yes it did prove itself the last 60 years, but in modern times, that line is becomming ever closer for road going cars. And engine layout isnt the biggest point to how a road car performs like u are saying...

[Addicted2Boost]

There you go have a read of how a brick front engine family saloon does against a zonda.

Owen Developments - Mitsubishi Evo VIII FQ400 v Pagani Zonda

These guys must be out of their mind 14 year old ricer editors even going as far as to say its quicker than a Zonda... even "super car slayer?" And just like i mentioned, they say how gone are the days of old supercars and its performance, with now the benchmark comming in the way of a brick like a family saloon...

Just shows how close that line is becomming in road cars.

Not a GTR, but again, proving what is possible these days. Also, on the Top Gear test track that EVO posting exactly 1 second slower than a Zonda...

And im sure u guys remeber this on top gear, i love this clip

YouTube - Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8 vs Lamborghini Murcielago

[Stachi]

I told you before, this discussion is going nowhere..

Marc