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

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

GTR vs Evo X vs STI: which has the best AWD system?

A few weeks ago, I made a post explaining  mainstream AWD system types and how they compare , pros and cons, etc. including some simple diagrams to show where the power goes and how much. As promised, this post will focus on specific cars and what AWD systems they use, especially ones that that have more or less been defined by their AWD systems, and the best place to start may be with a bombshell; the Nissan GT-R. Nissan GT-R (R35) The GT-R has built a reputation around having monster traction and very approachable performance, thanks to its AWD system - Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain (ATTESA) - and what it can do for you. But the GT-R doesn't actually use the most mechanically sophisticated type of AWD systems discussed in the previous article, namely a "true" AWD with a centre differential. Instead, it uses a clutch pack to transfer power. RWD-based clutch-type AWD schematic - Rams Eye The Track Guy © The R32, R33, and R34 Sky

Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R Track Review

2012 Boss 302 on square 305/30/19 RE-71R's at AMP - Graham MacNeil © For better or for worse, I have heard and read so much about RE-71R's. Everyone swears by the grip but complains about the wear. Generally speaking, the pros are: 1. They grip as well or better than most R comps. 2. They don't wear as quickly as R comps if driven occasionally on the street. 3. They work better in the rain than R comps. The cons were limited to overheating quickly when used on track (being an autocross tire) and wearing too fast on heavy cars like mine. In the popular 200 TW category, they are faster than the popular Hankook RS-4's and BFGoodrich Rival S's according to published Tire Rack Tests. According to plenty of reviews, they are also faster than well established R comps like R888R's (which don't seem to work too well on heavy cars anyway) and the venerable NT01's. But I was still hesitant for a while until I talked to a tire tech support gentleman

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track load