Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo - A Closer Look




This is the one every one has been waiting for, myself included. The two big giant killers - the Corvette and the Nissan GT-R. Let's cut to the chase, the Vette lost and people are surprised, disappointed or both. Around Willow Springs, the GT-R Nismo posted a lap time of 1:25.7 and Corvette Z06 posted a lap time of 1:27.1. That's 1.4 sec on a 1:25 lap which isn't insignificant.




I am surprised and disappointed myself. I thought the Corvette would have easily edged out the GT-R based on the handling tests, not just expectations:


Test Corvette Stingray Z06 (Z07)Nissan GT-R Nismo
Braking, 60-0 MPH91 ft97 ft
Lateral Acceleration1.17 g (avg)1.03 g (avg)
MT Figure Eight22.3 sec @ 1.06 g (avg)23.1 sec @ 0.99 g (avg)


The gap between the two is so large, you would be forgiven to think they are in two different classes. It's hard to believe it doesn't translate to benefit on the track. I think the fact that it didn't is down to a few factors:
  • The most obvious one is the fact that this particular Z06 had a manual and the GT-R only comes with a twin clutch auto. This is worth a few tenths probably. I would imagine it would bring the gap down to 1 second or a little under a second.
  • The Level 3 aero package (Z07) is clearly too much for this track. This is evident in the GT-R, which has 50 hp less and weighs over 350 lb. more, hitting a top speed that's 7 mph faster than the Corvette on the straight. They tried to remove the Gurney flap on the rear spoiler to reduce drag but saw a small gain in top speed (1 mph) for a big detriment in handling (increased tendency to oversteer) which produced an overall slower lap time. As a result, they concluded that removing aero isn't a good idea. I'm not sure how the testing team, including a professional racing driver (a seasoned one at that), didn't think of the fact (or point it out if they did) that reducing rear downforce without doing anything about the front will upset the downforce, and therefore handling, balance. Removing the Gurney flap will not produce results as good as having a car with the Level 2 aero package and I believe that a Level 2-equipped car would be a better fit for this track but the fact that the Michelin Cup tires only come with the Z07 package could hurt it so it's hard to say if it would produce better results overall.
  • Confidence, or lack thereof. It is clear from the individual test numbers that the Corvette is more capable when the road starts twisting. I would go as far say it is much more capable in terms of raw grip and stopping power. However, after looking at the track graph, there are a few spots where Randy turns earlier, brakes earlier or brakes harder and that should never happen in a car that has that much more grip and stronger brakes. The problem is mid-corner oversteer, according to the test. If that is the case, increasing stability mid corner should go a long way in improving lap times.
  • I think I read somewhere in the comments by Scott Evans that the car tested was an early production so maybe there are minor issues with it made the car more likely to oversteer such as shock tuning, differential tuning, etc. During the first test of the car, Randy said that the car is stable enough and he wants another 100 hp. Keep in mind, that car was a Level 2 so it has less downforce and less sticky tires. Both should make the car less stable, not otherwise. How could the less grippy car with less downforce be more stable?
  • Another possibility is that the automatic transmission, which was the one in the first track test of the car, has torque management that allows for much smoother torque delivery which would make the rear tires less likely to break loose. 
  • Different tracks favour different cars. That's why racing teams test and tweak at every track; to optimize for that track. This one may simple favour the handling balance of the GT-R over the Vette.
I do believe, though, that even if that same car, with the manual and Z07 package, were driven to its true potential (i.e. by someone who knows the car very well like Jim Mero) on that same track, it would beat a GT-R Nismo driven to its potential (i.e. by Toshio Suzuki or Michael Krumm). With that said, the average track goer isn't Jim Mero. Randy Pobst, a seasoned race car driver, couldn't beat his own time in the GT-R so the bottom line is, if you plan on taking it to the track and you care a lot about the last few tenths, you can't expect to beat a GT-R NISMO assuming both are stock, well driven. That, of course, all depends on this particular Corvette tested was a completely problem-free car and a good example of the breed.

What's most disappointing to me, though, is the overheating issue. I don't know if it really is a problem or it too could be a sign of the tester being an early production unit. I find it very hard to believe that Chevy would let the problem make it to production with such strong ties to racing and endurance racing in particular, let alone the fact that this is the top Corvette. I read somewhere that the reason the ECU reduces power is for emissions reasons not to protect the engine so maybe Chevy will have an optional ECU flash to disable that if you're at the track, the same way Ford offered the red (track) key with the Boss 302 for track use. Only time will tell. If it really is a problem, I would be hugely disappointed if GM does not address it.

As for the GT-R, although this particular model is far from the performance bargain it once was when this generation first returned back in 2008, it's still punching above its weight and it is good value. Starting above $151,000 USD, it's stepping into supercar territory pricing but it's nearly hypercar performance territory now. Still, it commands a nearly $50,000 premium over the top spec Vette with plenty of luxury options and the Z07 package. Being a Corvette fan, I would take the Z06 over the GT-R in a heartbeat without even thinking about it. It will sound better, look better and drive better in every day driving and for the few track days I go to, if it turns out to be actually slower, I will still have the perfect recipe for a performance car: a V8 in the front, a manual in the middle, and RWD in the back. If I had the money, though, I would probably go with the standard Stingray with the Z51 package. It would give me most of the thrills, non of the forced induction worries and plenty of money left over for track visits!


Comments







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Falken Azenis RT615k+ Street and Track Review

Last year, I picked up a 2009 Lancer Ralliart to do a long term test with it as a dual duty track/daily. One of the first things I knew I was going to do was put a decent set of tires on it. The car came without OEM wheels which was actually good because I didn't have to hesitate about getting a good set of aftermarket wheels to support going wider. Thankfully, my friends at YST Auto Halifax  set me up with a great set of Superspeed RF03RR wheels. The Wheels I had never even heard of Superspeed but I trusted the good folk at YST Auto who mentioned some customer cars running on track with them. These wheels are rotary forged which is basically a prerequisite to be taken seriously in this market populated by companies like TSW and Fast Wheels. The wheels looked like a high quality, well finished wheel and each had a "QC" check sticker on. Just for appearances? Maybe, but I found no defects. The wheels seemed easy to balance (didn't need many weights) and at 18.1 lb. f...

All Mainstream AWD and 4WD Systems Compared and Explained

Mitsubishi Evo X GSR at Atlantic Motorsport Park - Kevin Doubleday  © If you live in Canada or the US, you'll find that plenty of people hold sacred the terms '4x4' and '4WD' to describe a 'true 4x4', where you have a butch transfer case with a low speed, perhaps a body on frame chassis, and ideally a solid axle or two. I'm not sure how that translates to the rest of the world. My extensive research into the motoring industry in Europe (which exclusively consists of watching Top Gear and The Grand Tour...) concluded that most people across the pond simply refer to any vehicle that is capable of sending any power to all four wheels as a 4WD vehicle, further muddying the waters. Where I grew up, 4x4 was more or less synonymous with 'Jeep' so that's not much help either. However, despite all various systems attempting to do the same sort of thing - distribute power between all four wheels instead of two - not all systems are created equal,...

2016 Mustang EcoBoost Track Review

Photography by: Graham MacNeil Ford really wants to sell you a Mustang with a turbo four cylinder. They started by derating the V6 engine in the 2015 S550 compared to the 2011-2014 S197 V6 to make the EcoBoost 2.3 litre more differentiated. Then, they offered a performance pack on the EcoBoost but not on the V6. Now, they killed the V6 all together for 2018 and will only sell you a V8 or this EcoBoost. I love a good V8, everyone who knows me knows that. This is a Mustang, which means it needs a V8. If those aren't enough reasons, I always prefer natural aspiration over forced induction. That's three strikes against the EcoBoost-powered Mustang. But I'd be lying if I said the idea never intrigued me. It's the lightest (if you account for features). It has the best weight distribution. It has the same great chassis as the GT. It's very affordable and it has a lot of potential to make more power. Aftermarket? Endless support. There's plenty of good about it....

The New Mustang Mach 1 Heads to Dealers. Here's why it matters.

No, it's not because it's called Mach 1 or the heritage that comes with the name, although that's pretty cool for Mustang fans. There are few cars out there that have the widespread track use of Mustangs. A combination of affordability, a decent RWD platform with endless aftermarket support and the potential to be competitive when properly set up makes them a staple in most track paddocks in North America. But being popular for track use comes with some headaches for manufacturers. It means that the car will be pushed hard by its customers and that will inevitably lead to discovering weak links .  The vast majority of factory main-stream performance cars have limitations on track when pushed to hot lapping pace. That's not to say they are all equal - some are, without a doubt, far more durable and dependable than others - but nearly all require modifications. Mustangs are no exception. And their popularity also means those weak links are discovered fast, and marketing d...