What does it take to beat an ENZO?

[Cris]

Originally Posted by moleman

Blood and humble grovelling is good.

lol

Mr Moleman please accept my humblest apologies. You learned me good. Shalln't do it again. Promise.

Now I do have the video this camel and the eye of this needle.......

[Cris]

(Hopefully) my final comment this makes interesting reading:

Bedford Times

Gumpert Apollo S - 1:19.40
Caterham R500 - 1:20.20
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.50
Brooke Double R - 1:22.50
Porsche Carrera GT - 1:23.30
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.50
Nissan GT-R - 1:23.60

So we have a mid engined racer followed by a front engined kitcar, followed by a mid engined kit car etc. The CGT is 0.2 of a second quicker than the GT2 and 0.3 than the GTR. This would suggest to me that it wouldn't take much work for a GT2 or GTR to be fettled to be quicker than the CGT. Given that these three cars have similar 'ring times (ie close) that would suggest that it wouldn't take that much to bring either the GT2 or GTR to the level (if not quicker) of the CGT. Perhaps the PDK gearbox on the GT2 would shave a couple of tenths off it's track-time. Perhaps the v-spec likewise. I fancy that one of Herr Ruf's cars would also be quicker than the CGT.

Which of these cars is the best? That purely depends on best at what. The CGT is certainly the most impressive (v10, carbon bits, odd coloured wheel nuts etc). The GTR or GT2 are better for rear passengers (not much better mind ).

Any car with enough time and development can be quicker on a race-track than any car. A Corvette C6R is quicker than a F430 or Murcie at Le Mans. On a b-road a WRC car would wipe most things out. Does that mean my neighbour's Ford Focus is better than my GTR?

Unless anything interesting turns up I'm going to shut up on this topic.

Cheers

Cris

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by Cris

(Hopefully) my final comment this makes interesting reading:

Bedford Times

Gumpert Apollo S - 1:19.40
Caterham R500 - 1:20.20
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.50
Brooke Double R - 1:22.50
Porsche Carrera GT - 1:23.30
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.50
Nissan GT-R - 1:23.60

So we have a mid engined racer followed by a front engined kitcar, followed by a mid engined kit car etc. The CGT is 0.2 of a second quicker than the GT2 and 0.3 than the GTR. This would suggest to me that it wouldn't take much work for a GT2 or GTR to be fettled to be quicker than the CGT. Given that these three cars have similar 'ring times (ie close) that would suggest that it wouldn't take that much to bring either the GT2 or GTR to the level (if not quicker) of the CGT. Perhaps the PDK gearbox on the GT2 would shave a couple of tenths off it's track-time. Perhaps the v-spec likewise. I fancy that one of Herr Ruf's cars would also be quicker than the CGT.

Cris, were these lap times performed under the same testing conditions? i.e driver, weather, etc?

The problem with comparing lap times between cars is that they vary in laptimes depending on when and by who it was tested under. Best Motoring 5 lap battles offers some indication of how fast a certain car is against another on the same day, then on another day and driver, the same car is 1 second per lap faster or slower.

I have seen lap times between the Carrera GT vs GT2 997 and the Carerra is around 1 second a lap quicker on 4-5 different tracks but as these are probably performed on separate occasions, the results do not depict the real gap in performance between the 2 cars.

Any car with enough time and development can be quicker on a race-track than any car. A Corvette C6R is quicker than a F430 or Murcie at Le Mans. On a b-road a WRC car would wipe most things out. Does that mean my neighbour's Ford Focus is better than my GTR?

Unless anything interesting turns up I'm going to shut up on this topic.

Cheers

Cris

Thats true, particular circuits play to a car's and the driver's strength, and if a racing team and driver takes advantage of it then you have the best chance of coming out the fastest. But every racing car builder, whether they built FWD, RWD, front engined, rear engined or mid-engined cars all agree that low COG, low weight, low drag, and high chassis strength are the fundamentals to great pace on *any* track.

If a car builder fails to create a car that fully meets the above targets, then they resort to secondary tools such as downforce, balance, transient response, horsepower, gearing, etc etc to make most of what they have. If a car builder doesnt have mid-engined layout for their disposal, they have to do what they can to package the weight between the front and rear axles if the tracks they race on require response, one reason why the JGTC Supras used 4 bangers instead of the 2JZ. The Corvette racing car is another example of packaging the weight between the axle lines.

Those with mid-engined cars have more potential, but this doesnt automatically mean they are the fastest on any track, their principle strength lies in situations where sudden changes of direction is needed such as chicanes or during low speed corners providing the car engineer is competent enough to deploy suspension settings to take advantage of it. Transient response and manueverability outweighs ultimate grip.

People need to also realise in situations where there are no low speed turns or chicanes for a mid-engined car to take advantage of, this layout has virtually no drawbacks with the exception of limited passenger seating and luggage space for road use. In the racing world, either professional or amatuer you'd want the most response to steering input dont you???

Another factor with a supercar such as the Enzo is it produces enormous downforce, and very low drag at the same time - making the car hard to beat on high speed bends aswell as the low speed ones!

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by Addicted2Boost

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...

It is like talking to copy of Max Power here...

Performance gap between a fast supercars and a fast GTs has not changed over the years. The best supercars have always been faster on high speed bends than the fastest production GTs. The best supercars have always been more manueverable than the fastest production GTs. Your whole argument is on life support fed by one or two aspects of performance - which frankly a 1960 muscle car can be "tuned" to beat a supercar at aswell.

We can all agree that cars are faster than ever before regardless of class, thanks to improved tyres, more powerful engines, a growing appreciation towards aerodynamics, and clever driver aids for those who arent Keichi Tsuchiya.

I have already pointed out how you fail to read posts and your impediment towards digesting information that requires a little brain effort to understand, so I will spell it out for you one more time.

================================================== =====

1) YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS - EVEN NISSAN TELL YOU THIS.

IF YOU WANT WANT LOWEST MOMENT OF INERTIA, THE FASTEST TRANSIENT RESPONSE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ROAD OR TRACK, OR WHAT COUNTRY YOU ARE IN, YOU WANT LOW WEIGHT, AND THE MASS PACKAGED BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR AXLES.

THE MOST TRIED AND TRUSTED WAY TO DO THIS IS VIA MID-ENGINED LAYOUT. EVEN NISSAN, HONDA AND TOYOTA DO THIS WITH THEIR FASTEST RACE CARS FFS.

ALL THE FASTEST SUPERCARS AND THE FASTEST RACE CARS EVEN IN 2008 ADOPT THIS PRATICE


2) YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS - EVEN NISSAN WILL TELL YOU THIS.

IF YOU WANT MAXIMUM HIGH SPEED PERFORMANCE, SO YOU CAN GO FASTER AND BRAKE LATER DURING AND AFTER HIGH SPEED TURNS, YOU WANT THE CHASSIS TO REMAIN STABLE AND TO MAXIMUSE THE LOAD THE TYRES.

THE TRIED AND TRUSTED WAY TO DO THIS IS A CHASSIS WITH LOW DRAG, HIGH DOWNFORCE AND TIGHT CONTROL OF THE CENTRE OF PRESSURE. EVEN NISSAN, HONDA AND TOYOTA DO THIS WITH THEIR FASTEST RACE CARS FFS

ALL THE FASTEST SUPERCARS AND RACE CARS EVEN IN 2008 ADOPT THIS PRACTICE.


3) YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS - EVEN NISSAN FOR THE 3RD TIME WILL TELL YOU THIS.

IF YOU WANT MAXIMUM GRIP FROM YOUR TYRES, YOU WILL WANT TO MAXIMISE LOAD ON ALL 4 TYRES, WITH MINIMAL GEOMETRY CHANGE AND BODY ROLL WITHOUT IMPACTING WHEEL TRAVEL.

THE TRIED AND TRUSTED WAY TO DO THIS IS TO HAVE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE CENTRE OF GRAVITY, DISTRIBUTE THE MASS EVENLY, AND MAXIMISE THE TRACK WIDTH AND MINIMISE THE WEIGHT OF THE CAR. EVEN NISSAN, HONDA AND TOYOTA DO THIS WITH THEIR FASTEST RACE CARS FFS

ALL THE FASTEST SUPERCARS AND THE FASTEST RACE CARS EVEN IN 2008 ADOPT THIS PRATICE

================================================== =====


You see, I dont like having to shout at forum members as I much rather discuss cars amicably with other human beings, but I can see people like yourself live their lives through bright sights, loud sounds and strong smells, you live with the ethos that the louder you say something, the truer it must be. Unfortunately I dont have big pictures and videos that can borrow some of your limited attention, nor can I condense a complicated subject into simple terms so you can digest them in the slim chance that you might understand why manufacturers still build cars they way they build them.

I can see from the past several posts you have one agenda, and that is for you to hold on to your perfectly comfortable equilibrium of not needing to learn any more information from cars/engineering or life other than the instinct to just breathe.

[kismetcapitan]

will someone shut this to$$er up??

[Addicted2Boost]

Originally Posted by Stachi

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

Marc

Agree... no point continuing this on anymore. just goes around in circles.

Sidious, i didnt even attempt to read ur last post... I think this thread has been pretty much exhausted this subject out... why dont someone just lock it down..

[kismetcapitan]

no point in trying to enlighten a rock. the fudgepacker honestly should leave this place to the true GT-R enthusiasts. He can go to ferrarichat.com and go preach to the choir there - no one here is interested in such completely useless non-GT-R related verbal w@nkage.

Moderators, please lock this thread. Once again, Sidious has taken something interesting (GTRLux's poll) and turned it into maddeningly inane rubbish.

And for the record, I do not believe Sidious even owns a GT-R, nor has ever driven one. Clearly, the to$$er has never experienced a car with any amount of significant horsepower.

[Cris]

Originally Posted by Sidious

Cris, were these lap times performed under the same testing conditions? i.e driver, weather, etc?

Can't resist - as far as I can remember yes. The magazine quoted the times from the cars being tested together in a single 'group test'. I think that the driver was Richard Meaden. I'd have to look at the article to be sure as it was a month or so ago.

If I remember I'll dig the article out and check.

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by Cris

Can't resist - as far as I can remember yes. The magazine quoted the times from the cars being tested together in a single 'group test'. I think that the driver was Richard Meaden. I'd have to look at the article to be sure as it was a month or so ago.

If I remember I'll dig the article out and check.

Litchfield Type-25 v Caterham CSR 260 v Lotus Exige S v Radical SR3 1300 v Ariel Atom v Porsche Carrera GT v Ford GT v Ferrari Enzo v McLaren F1 | Car Group Tests | Car Reviews | evo

I found this one, Carrera GT lapped the West Circuit in 1:20.20, around 1 second faster than the Enzo and McLaren, and they even went to say this isn't even the fastest lap recorded for the Carrera, this completely blitzes any production 911 lap time.

Best/only GTR lap is 1:21.7 which is a highly respectable lap for a car of its size and they commented on how easy it was to acheive those laps where as the Carrera GT is a nervious thing on a knife edge.

[markM3]

Track has been altered between the two tests, that is why they did the Carrera GT , GT2 , GTR etc group test.

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by markM3

Track has been altered between the two tests, that is why they did the Carrera GT , GT2 , GTR etc group test.

You're right, the 1:21.7 lap from the GT-R and the 1:19.7 & 1:20.2 lap for the Carrera GT were on the older version of the West circuit.

[gtrlux]

As I am the author of this thead I allow my self to input this in to the discussion: (and peeps please come down or Mr.Ban will wipe this thread clean and lock it . .which would be a shame)

1) The Enzo is (what ever you want to call it to feel nice with it ) a super car ! It costs so much that you can ask yourself if it really makes sense in terms of real world value-performance . As every body knows that for 1.000.000$+ you can build up most GT cars to superior performance then an ENZO.
2) Performance is a big word that can mean many things. Yes the ENZO aerodynamics are from another world compared to your GTR. And therefore it can hit thoses hight speeds above 320kph! Now that is all great for western opulent show off, but it doesn`t help much in the real world to go more quick then 320kph ! That`s when you start to compare your initial 5.000.000Yen R32 GTR from 1989 , what it can do in terms of handling , against the exactly 25 times more expensive ENZO. And then you realize that without swapping your budget GT car engine for a super car engine, you actually not need 25 times more money to tune your 89. GTR to the same (or superior) level of handling and it`s six cylinder to superior power outputs, of that very ENZO . . . . .
3)A real super car should obliviate every thing on any road, weather conditions and should be reliable in thoses extreme conditions, as this is also a very big requierement for aiming the title of dominator amongst cars!
The Enzo , Zonda and co are shit drives in wet, they are shit on slippery roads, and they are shit on bumped roads (now dominating in thoses conditions seems to be not that important for the supercar fans, as it is more cool to sparkle on a clean track with 400kph highspeeds . . . .

4) Then at last considering all the above, it is more then legitime to take the Enzo with it skills as a reference in certain domains and thinking about what you can do and for how much to bring your budget GT to superior performance in overall terms (the highspeed aero problem is the last thing in my mind).

Give me 1.000.000$ and my R32GTR would (with it`s initial engine, chassis and 4WD systhem kill an ENZO any where at anytime. So now please tell me somebody how much money we need to invest in our R32 GTR to get partially the skills of an ENZO . . . theses are the interesting answers we want to hear!

[Cris]

Originally Posted by Sidious

You're right, the 1:21.7 lap from the GT-R and the 1:19.7 & 1:20.2 lap for the Carrera GT were on the older version of the West circuit.

This is something interesting.

If the CGT is approx 1 second quicker on the old circuit than the Enzo and F1 and the GTR and GT2 are less than 1 second slower than the CGT on the new circuit that would suggest that the GT2 and GTR are quicker than the F1 and Enzo. Even if that's not the case they must be pretty close.

So is the answer to the OT - an R35 perhaps tuned or v-spec?

[Sidious]

Originally Posted by gtrlux

1) The Enzo is (what ever you want to call it to feel nice with it ) a super car ! It costs so much that you can ask yourself if it really makes sense in terms of real world value-performance . As every body knows that for 1.000.000$+ you can build up most GT cars to superior performance then an ENZO.

I think you using the $1000000 budget as a bit of a catch-all clause.

But even so, in the "real world" you and few others on here always like to say, the laws of physics is the ultimate limiting factor to what a particular car can or cannot do. You have to understand these things and why cars are built the way they are. To improve a car you have to test, and test again, experiment with parts and setups and then measure it, quantify it and of course see how fast it goes from A-B. Unless you plan on hiring top professionals for consultation, various roads and tracks for development, spare parts in case you break things during testing, and a professional racing driver to do all this and insurance, the $1000000 wont get you very far.

2) Performance is a big word that can mean many things. Yes the ENZO aerodynamics are from another world compared to your GTR. And therefore it can hit thoses hight speeds above 320kph! Now that is all great for western opulent show off, but it doesn`t help much in the real world to go more quick then 320kph ! That`s when you start to compare your initial 5.000.000Yen R32 GTR from 1989 , what it can do in terms of handling , against the exactly 25 times more expensive ENZO. And then you realize that without swapping your budget GT car engine for a super car engine, you actually not need 25 times more money to tune your 89. GTR to the same (or superior) level of handling and it`s six cylinder to superior power outputs, of that very ENZO . . . . .

Aerodyanamics is a misused term, dude. You have 3 factors which apply the "real world" just as much as decent tyres with correct pressure applies to the "real world".

- Downforce or negative lift
- Drag
- Distribution of negative lift forces and leverage

You can have 1000 KG of downforce, but this would be useless if it was all applied to the rear axle and suffer huge understeer problems if you are lucky.

You can have 1000 KG of downforce spread across the whole chassis, but if you have very high drag at the same time, you will get overtaken on the straights by a rival car.

You will find alot of the upper end racing cars, including the JGTC GTRs and recent supecars all deploy tricks to maximise usable downforce and minimise drag at the same time.

A rear dry carbon wing, a top secret rear difuser and a few canards at the front of an R32 GTR wont do much but reduce a bit of underbody lift at road usable ride heights, but will add considerable amount of drag.

3)A real super car should obliviate every thing on any road, weather conditions and should be reliable in thoses extreme conditions, as this is also a very big requierement for aiming the title of dominator amongst cars!
The Enzo , Zonda and co are shit drives in wet, they are shit on slippery roads, and they are shit on bumped roads (now dominating in thoses conditions seems to be not that important for the supercar fans, as it is more cool to sparkle on a clean track with 400kph highspeeds . . . .

No supercar has even been claimed to obliterate everything on the road, please try not let your own imagination get carried away here.

Wet weather affects all cars, especially GT-Rs which tend to use summer tyres. Braking and laterial grip is limited as would any other car would be, however you can apply power a bit better than a RWD car can - that is the only advantage a GTR would have.

4) Then at last considering all the above, it is more then legitime to take the Enzo with it skills as a reference in certain domains and thinking about what you can do and for how much to bring your budget GT to superior performance in overall terms (the highspeed aero problem is the last thing in my mind).

If you race a fictional 800 HP GTR against an Enzo, "highspeed aero problem" will become a major factor considering how easy it would be for these cars to reach over 3 figure speeds.

Please do not belittle or pretent that significant aspect of a cars performance doesnt exist just because it happens to place your GTR at a disadvantage.

Give me 1.000.000$ and my R32GTR would (with it`s initial engine, chassis and 4WD systhem kill an ENZO any where at anytime. So now please tell me somebody how much money we need to invest in our R32 GTR to get partially the skills of an ENZO . . . theses are the interesting answers we want to hear!

As I said earlier, $1000000 wont be enough, its not a simple case of buying aftermarket parts - otherwise only $50000 will do.

[kismetcapitan]

¥5,000,000 is enough to build a GT-R that will make only driver skill the determining factor between an Enzo and a GT-R in any race on any surface. Bump that to ¥10,000,000 and you've got an edge, ESPECIALLY when conditions are not ideal.

Let's say (VERY hypothetically, as he'll never actually get near one), that Sidious owns a Ferrari Enzo. He meets Mick at the pub and Mick has brought his Lemon, which is making over 1000bhp. Would Sidious believe so much in the superiority of midship construction, superior aerodynamics, blah blah, that he would lay down a race for slips at Santa Pod, then the Nordschleife, a B road, and then an airstrip?

The remarkable design of the Ferrari Enzo, with its F1-inspired front and carbon-tub construction, midship V12, and aerodynamics designed to provide superior handling, especially to any poseur Jap saloon like the Skyline prone to inferior handling. Because of the LAWS OF PHYSICS, an Enzo is simply superior, and at 100mph generates enough aerodynamics to give the car handling that would outdo virtually any car on the road. For example:
YouTube - Eddie Griffin ferrari Enzo Crash
oops. Guess even aero design, F1 technology, and a midship V12 isn't enough to stop that car from understeering worse than a base-model Honda Civic...circa 1990!

I've mentioned this before, but in a full-out race between a 800 wheel hp Toyota Supra and a Ferrari Enzo, the Supra won. Both cars went well over 200mph.