Z4M at Knockhill

[Beedub]

Great vid. The M looks superb in the corners, very sharp flat and neutral. My 35is would need a LOT of work in the chassis to keep up.

The GTR passing then slowing to your speeds in the corners reminds me of the old RS500 touring cars and the new BMW M3's in the late eighties, the cossie would blast past with around 560BHP compared to the 280/300 M's but the Sierra did'nt have the chassis so the M3 could live with them through the bends.

Thanks for posting the vid, enjoyed it.

they really are nuts are aggressive you can throw them around in the twisties.... just think, the video your seeing is of the car running budget semislicks.... imagine it on a trofeo R or Cup 2 tyre.... giant slayer... That big GTR was washing wide on those corners, bit more power and OP would keep that car honest.... or clark would :evil: :evil: :evil:

The car looked so well balanced in that clip, don't forget OP you have ALOT of adjustability to play with yet, you an make this even better, cant stress how incredible those clubsport dampers are, Imo not very streetable.

 

[Easty-5]

Was the R remapped? I have one of the mk7s and there's no way it would walk away from the M like that so I'm guessing it was fettled. Having tracked both (my old MR) I can say that the M is way more fun either way but I'm surprised how that red one seems to walk away from you on the straights.

It had certainly been fettled with as it had an audible dump valve sounded a bit more fruity than normal. However, the 4WD certainly helps it get on the power earlier when exiting corners.

That GTR is a regular at KH. It has been pretty fettled with & runs 888s. Think it would take a fair power hike for the M to keep it properly honest. Clark really, really pushed the limits trying to keep it at bay, and to be fair, done an excellent job.

I don't know if any you noticed in the vids but there was also a Ferrari F458 Challenge on track. Now that thing is seriously, seriously quick. It makes the GTR look slow! I have driven one in anger and it is absolutely insane.

 

[Babw]

Great progressive driving in the second video! Not sure how many laps you'd get taking that many liberties with the tyres though. It seemed to be set up really well and not being too delicate is definitely the way with the balance of the Z4. It's a super fun car for sure.

With regards to the GTR it's a completely different driving technique to a RWD car, it's basically a RWD until the steering is a few degrees within straight ahead then the all wheel drive digs you out. I got give a Michael Krumm book by Nissan when I bought mine and he explains it really well. After owning RWD only previously it takes some getting used to and you can make it misbehave (under/oversteer) so it doesn't "drive itself" like most journos inaccurately stated. The best attributes of the GTR though are the directness and feedback from the steering, body control and braking. Power and traction comes way down on the list.

The fact the Z4M is less rounded and a little lacking in some of the areas are what makes a great drive, in the GTR I'm concentrating to eek out another few percent where as in the Z4M I'm concentrating to not bin it. Both are brilliant cars in their own right and driving both back to back is a great afternoons fun as you've got to recalibrate your brain when you jump from one to another.

 

[buzyg]

Loved watching that. Your mate can sure pedal Zed.

 

[Beedub]

Great progressive driving in the second video! Not sure how many laps you'd get taking that many liberties with the tyres though. It seemed to be set up really well and not being too delicate is definitely the way with the balance of the Z4. It's a super fun car for sure.

With regards to the GTR it's a completely different driving technique to a RWD car, it's basically a RWD until the steering is a few degrees within straight ahead then the all wheel drive digs you out. I got give a Michael Krumm book by Nissan when I bought mine and he explains it really well. After owning RWD only previously it takes some getting used to and you can make it misbehave (under/oversteer) so it doesn't "drive itself" like most journos inaccurately stated. The best attributes of the GTR though are the directness and feedback from the steering, body control and braking. Power and traction comes way down on the list.

The fact the Z4M is less rounded and a little lacking in some of the areas are what makes a great drive, in the GTR I'm concentrating to eek out another few percent where as in the Z4M I'm concentrating to not bin it. Both are brilliant cars in their own right and driving both back to back is a great afternoons fun as you've got to recalibrate your brain when you jump from one to another.

same wth any powerful RWD, they require concentration , they really require a delicate hand they require you to think about how your driving,Any 4wd paddle shifter is giving a huge helping hand from the off, the GTR is am immense machine but lets make no bones about its, its no track car, they overheat in stock form very quickly, they understeer, they are WAY to heavy so a real track warrior will cause significant wear on components and that video highlights those traits, you simply cant defy the laws of physics, maybe you an for a lap or so . Don't get me wrong they are awesome machines but a properly set up z4m with proper tyres will show the big heavy GTR a thing or 2 in the corners on a track particularly a tighter one and will be way more fun doing it too.. Sometimes its not all about the ultimate lap time , a la 911 R.
The z4m is on bloody Nankang semi slicks as well, ... Imagine it on a top level like a cup 2 or trofeo R ( not taking anything away from the Ns2R for the money they are awesome) from what i saw, another 70hp and the z4 would have been all over it and lets face it the GTR driver wasn't exactly holding back ;-) As said before with a top level damper and setup ( with associated bushings etc) , brake upgrade, this car really shines, how much you just cant imagine....

The only problem is once the above has been done, the 338hp starts to feel like more is needed.

 

[Easty-5]

The only problem is once the above has been done, the 338hp starts to feel like more is needed.

Certainly at this stage now, with Clark driving anyway. I still have another 2-3s to knock off my laptime before I've reached the car's limits.

Clark's driving is (self admitted) pretty rusty. He was involved in a serious motorbike accident 18 months ago and is still recovering. So he hasn't really done much in the way of competative/track driving since his accident. He reckons he can maybe shave another 1s off his time but that's about it.

Give the Z4M another 100bhp and put it on a decent diet and you would have a pretty amazing car on track that not much other than out and out track machines could keep up with.

 

[Babw]

Great progressive driving in the second video! Not sure how many laps you'd get taking that many liberties with the tyres though. It seemed to be set up really well and not being too delicate is definitely the way with the balance of the Z4. It's a super fun car for sure.

With regards to the GTR it's a completely different driving technique to a RWD car, it's basically a RWD until the steering is a few degrees within straight ahead then the all wheel drive digs you out. I got give a Michael Krumm book by Nissan when I bought mine and he explains it really well. After owning RWD only previously it takes some getting used to and you can make it misbehave (under/oversteer) so it doesn't "drive itself" like most journos inaccurately stated. The best attributes of the GTR though are the directness and feedback from the steering, body control and braking. Power and traction comes way down on the list.

The fact the Z4M is less rounded and a little lacking in some of the areas are what makes a great drive, in the GTR I'm concentrating to eek out another few percent where as in the Z4M I'm concentrating to not bin it. Both are brilliant cars in their own right and driving both back to back is a great afternoons fun as you've got to recalibrate your brain when you jump from one to another.

same wth any powerful RWD, they require concentration , they really require a delicate hand they require you to think about how your driving,Any 4wd paddle shifter is giving a huge helping hand from the off, the GTR is am immense machine but lets make no bones about its, its no track car, they overheat in stock form very quickly, they understeer, they are WAY to heavy so a real track warrior will cause significant wear on components and that video highlights those traits, you simply cant defy the laws of physics, maybe you an for a lap or so . Don't get me wrong they are awesome machines but a properly set up z4m with proper tyres will show the big heavy GTR a thing or 2 in the corners on a track particularly a tighter one and will be way more fun doing it too.. Sometimes its not all about the ultimate lap time , a la 911 R.

I agree to a point with what you're saying but you're muddying the waters between a hobbyist track car and a track/race car. I've driven quite a few track/race cars i.e 911 GT2R and hobbyist track cars i.e 458 Speciale and the race cars are responsive but less manic driving quickly. Cars like the 458 Speciale have a level of involvement built in to keep the driver "entertained" where as the race cars are built to be more stable especially with aero the quicker you go. The race cars don't require as delicate touch as the road going "track" cars. The closest thing is a 911 GT3 and that requires less delicate touch than something like an M4 which is pretty lethal and some might say more entertaining; but this is completely subjective however I personally would disagree.

I chose a GTR after trying MP4-12C, 458 Italia, Gallardo 560, MC Stradale and SLS. The GTR portrayed more race car like feeling than the others, Mclaren was the closest but the Iris system had too many bugs at the time. You can clearly tell when compared to something like an SLS that the GTR has been developed from the ground up by a race engineer, the front axle is hugely direct. They fixed the transmission heating issues in 2011 and the weight was chosen from the outset to aid with stability. Mizuno San the chief engineer said even a 100kg reduction would upset the stability massively. In a way it does bend physics as I can often pull 1.4g on the Vbox and even 1.1g in damp conditions on Super sports, Z4M is sideways at 0.8g. That feeling of being sucked into a road at silly speeds is rarely felt on road cars without huge rear wings.

I've driven a GTR on track with no aftermarket cooling for 20 minute stints with no issues, in complete road spec you won't get 1 hour sessions with one but it was never designed to be that car. That's why I bought an Z4M for the opposite lock moments but it's in a completely different league to the GTR as far as going quickly is concerned and I don't mean that as a slur on the Z4M as I don't think it's designed to be that car.

 

[Beedub]

Great progressive driving in the second video! Not sure how many laps you'd get taking that many liberties with the tyres though. It seemed to be set up really well and not being too delicate is definitely the way with the balance of the Z4. It's a super fun car for sure.

With regards to the GTR it's a completely different driving technique to a RWD car, it's basically a RWD until the steering is a few degrees within straight ahead then the all wheel drive digs you out. I got give a Michael Krumm book by Nissan when I bought mine and he explains it really well. After owning RWD only previously it takes some getting used to and you can make it misbehave (under/oversteer) so it doesn't "drive itself" like most journos inaccurately stated. The best attributes of the GTR though are the directness and feedback from the steering, body control and braking. Power and traction comes way down on the list.

The fact the Z4M is less rounded and a little lacking in some of the areas are what makes a great drive, in the GTR I'm concentrating to eek out another few percent where as in the Z4M I'm concentrating to not bin it. Both are brilliant cars in their own right and driving both back to back is a great afternoons fun as you've got to recalibrate your brain when you jump from one to another.

same wth any powerful RWD, they require concentration , they really require a delicate hand they require you to think about how your driving,Any 4wd paddle shifter is giving a huge helping hand from the off, the GTR is am immense machine but lets make no bones about its, its no track car, they overheat in stock form very quickly, they understeer, they are WAY to heavy so a real track warrior will cause significant wear on components and that video highlights those traits, you simply cant defy the laws of physics, maybe you an for a lap or so . Don't get me wrong they are awesome machines but a properly set up z4m with proper tyres will show the big heavy GTR a thing or 2 in the corners on a track particularly a tighter one and will be way more fun doing it too.. Sometimes its not all about the ultimate lap time , a la 911 R.

I agree to a point with what you're saying but you're muddying the waters between a hobbyist track car and a track/race car. I've driven quite a few track/race cars i.e 911 GT2R and hobbyist track cars i.e 458 Speciale and the race cars are responsive but less manic driving quickly. Cars like the 458 Speciale have a level of involvement built in to keep the driver "entertained" where as the race cars are built to be more stable especially with aero the quicker you go. The race cars don't require as delicate touch as the road going "track" cars. The closest thing is a 911 GT3 and that requires less delicate touch than something like an M4 which is pretty lethal and some might say more entertaining; but this is completely subjective however I personally would disagree.

I chose a GTR after trying MP4-12C, 458 Italia, Gallardo 560, MC Stradale and SLS. The GTR portrayed more race car like feeling than the others, Mclaren was the closest but the Iris system had too many bugs at the time. You can clearly tell when compared to something like an SLS that the GTR has been developed from the ground up by a race engineer, the front axle is hugely direct. They fixed the transmission heating issues in 2011 and the weight was chosen from the outset to aid with stability. Mizuno San the chief engineer said even a 100kg reduction would upset the stability massively. In a way it does bend physics as I can often pull 1.4g on the Vbox and even 1.1g in damp conditions on Super sports, Z4M is sideways at 0.8g. That feeling of being sucked into a road at silly speeds is rarely felt on road cars without huge rear wings.

I've driven a GTR on track with no aftermarket cooling for 20 minute stints with no issues, in complete road spec you won't get 1 hour sessions with one but it was never designed to be that car. That's why I bought an Z4M for the opposite lock moments but it's in a completely different league to the GTR as far as going quickly is concerned and I don't mean that as a slur on the Z4M as I don't think it's designed to be that car.

fair points...... the stock z4m is a blunt instrument for sure, poor suspension, poor tyres choice but the platform is so so so good..... have you ever driven one with the changes i mention above, take my car for example... if you did you'd change your mind maybe, but please lets make no bones about it, the GTR is a road car through and through, a very impressive one but its a road car, and PLEASE don't ever try and make an argument for any car approaching 2 tonnes and how that weight is "helping".... Weight is a killer of all ( feel, components, Agility, the list goes on) , no matter what you Can NOT defy the laws of physics... The z4 itself is no lightweight really but much better in that department, but one with a proper damper, suspension overhaul , hike in power, right tyre and driver will show most things a clean rear on the track, i prove my point every time i venture out against the GT3s while they merrily point and laugh at my nankang tyres semi slicks with their noses stuck in the air... by the time I'm back in the paddock no one has any words left and usually the same people are back over brown nose-ing like the weasels they are, lol!

 

[Babw]

It's not defying physics at all, it's using physics. The weight was set at around 1650kg for good reason. 600kg F1 car with driver creates about 1000kg downforce. 1200kg GT2 car creates around 500kg downforce. Both total about 1700kg. This weight is what gives the stability, coupled with the rear transaxle giving almost equal weight per wheel and the extremely effective all wheel drive allows the very quick lap times.

What makes the 911 so quick for it's relative lack of power? Traction due to weight over the rear wheels. To make a Z4M as fast over the mid to high speed stuff you'd have to stick a massive wing on the back but due to the high Cd you'd have a reduced top speed and you'd still be sideways losing time on the slow speed corner. You can put amazing tyres on but if they're not being pushed into the ground you're only getting a fraction of their ability.

There's no argument here, a GTR and Z4M with similar power to weight driven by the same driver will give the GTR significantly better lap times due to better traction, better chassis and better gearbox. Doesn't matter what power you have, it can't take away from the inherently better design of the GTR. It also has a coeff of drag of 0.26, for example a 458 has a 0.33. A GTR GT3 car is one of the least changed from stock form compared to even things like R8, 458; it's also the heaviest but one of the most successful - 7 championship wins with the heaviest car in it's class.

We're not talking about enjoyment here as that's completely subjective. I'd love to see some evidence of a Z4M roadster that's faster than any R35 GTR around any recognised circuits using similar skilled drivers?

You also forget that the R35 can be modified significantly and rumour is that the Litchfield GTR LM1 has taken a chunk off the 6.57 Nurburgring lap time set by the 918. That car is probably worth about 150k. Do you think a 150k Z4M can do a sub 7 minute ring time?

 

[Beedub]

It's not defying physics at all, it's using physics. The weight was set at around 1650kg for good reason. 600kg F1 car with driver creates about 1000kg downforce. 1200kg GT2 car creates around 500kg downforce. Both total about 1700kg. This weight is what gives the stability, coupled with the rear transaxle giving almost equal weight per wheel and the extremely effective all wheel drive allows the very quick lap times.

What makes the 911 so quick for it's relative lack of power? Traction due to weight over the rear wheels. To make a Z4M as fast over the mid to high speed stuff you'd have to stick a massive wing on the back but due to the high Cd you'd have a reduced top speed and you'd still be sideways losing time on the slow speed corner. You can put amazing tyres on but if they're not being pushed into the ground you're only getting a fraction of their ability.

There's no argument here, a GTR and Z4M with similar power to weight driven by the same driver will give the GTR significantly better lap times due to better traction, better chassis and better gearbox. Doesn't matter what power you have, it can't take away from the inherently better design of the GTR. It also has a coeff of drag of 0.26, for example a 458 has a 0.33. A GTR GT3 car is one of the least changed from stock form compared to even things like R8, 458; it's also the heaviest but one of the most successful - 7 championship wins with the heaviest car in it's class.

We're not talking about enjoyment here as that's completely subjective. I'd love to see some evidence of a Z4M roadster that's faster than any R35 GTR around any recognised circuits using similar skilled drivers?

You also forget that the R35 can be modified significantly and rumour is that the Litchfield GTR LM1 has taken a chunk off the 6.57 Nurburgring lap time set by the 918. That car is probably worth about 150k. Do you think a 150k Z4M can do a sub 7 minute ring time?

The GTR is a great road vehicle, all I'm saying is a nicely worked on z4m isn't a far behind as you'd think and costs less than a quarter of the price and running costs, not saying its better or will kill it, just saying its not a far ahead as you'd like to believe with some decent work done to it due to a very nice platform ( if hampered heavily in stock form) , even with said work its STILL massively cheaper to run maintain and buy, but now we are talking about ring times, racing cars, 150k worth of 1000hp Lm1 gtr turbo kits, come on... lol... but from when i see you continue to talk about weight as an advantage i cant continue the debate tbh.... lol.... you win.

oh.... the GTR gt3 car btw..... firstly.... its nothing like the road car not even slightly, .... and its weights in at 1300kg... lmao.... mate half your argument was just thrown out the window.. lol. wonder why they didn't keep it at 1650kg???

http://www.nismo.co.jp/en/products/GT3/spec.html

 

[Herminator]

It's not defying physics at all, it's using physics. The weight was set at around 1650kg for good reason. 600kg F1 car with driver creates about 1000kg downforce. 1200kg GT2 car creates around 500kg downforce. Both total about 1700kg. This weight is what gives the stability, coupled with the rear transaxle giving almost equal weight per wheel and the extremely effective all wheel drive allows the very quick lap times.

This weight "advantage" GTR guys spout really gets my goat.
You may be creating more grip from the tyres (working them harder and thus wearing them out quicker) but you need massively more grip in order to accelerate/decelerate that extra mass in all directions. Want something that corners or accelerates quicker than something else the same shape, with the same tyres, same driver aids, aerodynamics, etc. then reducing it's weight will achieve that.

 

[Babw]

If you read what I said, I actually said it's the "heaviest in it's class". Not as heavy as the road car.

The ethos behind using a heavy car for stability took me some thinking to get my head around but it makes perfect sense. Make a heavy car for stability, makes it slippery for higher speeds because you don't need such big downforce due to weight, give it a fantastic all wheel drive system to make best use of the available grip + counteract understeer. It actually uses an open front diff as stock to keep it friendly hence the slight apparent understeer moments, I'm having a torque vectoring fitted which makes the front end unbelievably pointy and able to rotate the rear end on throttle. All of this makes it more easy to drive at 10/10th for 95% of people than a lairy huge power, light and RWD car which is difficult to control on the brakes and throttle.

The car is not a concept, it's real and has been doing it for years. How does it launch to 60 in under 2.8 seconds if weight is such a big penalty? There are cars which have a much better power to weight ratio including AWD which can't put the power down. Why's that then? This advantage is not only in launching, it's applicable when there are corners introduced.

I'm really not that fussed if you disagree but you're not disagreeing with me but a designer who has executed his theory and proved a lot of less well informed people wrong. It's Gran Turismo mentality to say power to weight is the biggest advantage when clearly in the real world there're far more factors to consider to make a car lap quickly.

I personally think the Z4M is a good car, otherwise I wouldn't own one obviously but having driven a lot of fast cars I wouldn't choose it as the base for a fast track car. There's something quite lacking in it's balance and controls which makes it feel like a hot rod; light front end, sitting on the rear axle. It's just too lively.

Also isn't yours supercharged? How many minutes can you stay out on track before overheating? The S54 block is iron and acts as a massive heat retainer doesn't it?

Here's a snippet from the chief engineer if you're interested -

"Tyre contact, pressures and the conditions are the most important factors for control," he said. "An F1 can't perform in the snow; it's too light.

"Other car designers develop a car as a unit. I develop the car's essentials. I decide the tyre size. The most effective contact pressure decides the amount of kilograms we should include; for the best tyre grip. From these situations I calculate and decide car weight.

"Always [motoring] journalists say: "Lighter is better, lighter is better... I don't necessarily think so. The most effective tyre contact is essential, and it's these essentials that decide things like weight."

He argues that if the GT-R had been trimmed to match or better its apparent rival, the Porsche 911 Turbo, the car's performance "wouldn't be better, but worse."

"Maybe on a dry road or track but not on the snow, and its 0-100km/h acceleration time wouldn't be as good."

Asking Aussie journalists to reconcile with markets that are affected by snow might be a big ask, but accommodating our roads isn't the highest priority on Nissan's agenda: Rather, its wealthy local buyers -- for example a revered doctor living in Hokkaido -- and expanding interests in the Middle East with its sandy roads are of more interest.

Nissan claims the GT-R's sprint time is now three seconds, and a lap of the Nurburgring can be done in 7min24sec.

Mizuno says downforce also makes a fast car, and is arguably more important than controlling weight. And downforce in part relies on tyre grip load: weight...

 

[Babw]

I'm not saying lower weight is a disadvantage in isolation but as a car designed to be driven by mere mortals making it a little heavier to give it more stability so normal people can regularly access the last 5% of it's performance is a pretty clever move because it doesn't seem to have dulled it's dynamics compared to a other thrilling cars like 458's etc. I know race car drivers who would say they don't need the added stability so would much prefer a lighter weight for more performance but knowing how it was designed probably not as much performance increase as you'd expect.

I was shopping for a fast car with an open mind and after trying all the main contenders was I sold on the GTR and how they've thought outside the conventional to create something quite special.

 

[Beedub]

mate.... lol.... give up.... you've lost all credibility here in my eyes, enjoying the banter however.. nice to see someone that can keep it car related without spitting the dummy. However you win, I'm out....

The GTR is an epic road car but is so blunted by it weight, that 4wd and twin clutcher really help it along... The z4m is a nice road car out the box, definitely blunt i won't make it something its not, their is balance to what I'm saying, what I am saying is.... a properly tuned one, with the right suspension changes, tyres, and maybe a touch more power will really suprise ALOT of people. Thats all really nothing more nothing less , awesome platform and you'd be surprised, but the feel and enjoyment it offers doing so its from my experience hard to match........

 

[Babw]

Ok so I've lost credibility as I own both cars and can give an informed opinion. Well that's logical.

How many times have you driven a GTR on road and track? Apparently you know more than a race car designer who's been in the game for 40 years, who clearly doesn't think that weight blunts it.

I wasn't trying to gain credibility, just trying to correct your misinformation.

Also I clearly said earlier that I give full agreement to the fact that the Z4M is an enjoyable car but enjoyment and lap times aren't always synonymous. What you interpret as "blunt" I interpret as accessible. As you can see I fully buy into the fact that the weight has made the performance more accessible, as I said in my first post in this topic ; when driving a GTR on track I can look to get that last few percent out where as in a Z4 the last few percent isn't anywhere near as accessible. If this means less bluntness and more entertainment then good for you.

I can only hope to reclaim some credibility from you in the near future.... :rofl:

 

[Beedub]

Ok so I've lost credibility as I own both cars and can give an informed opinion. Well that's logical.

How many times have you driven a GTR on road and track? Apparently you know more than a race car designer who's been in the game for 40 years, who clearly doesn't think that weight blunts it.

I wasn't trying to gain credibility, just trying to correct your misinformation.

Also I clearly said earlier that I give full agreement to the fact that the Z4M is an enjoyable car but enjoyment and lap times aren't always synonymous. What you interpret as "blunt" I interpret as accessible. As you can see I fully buy into the fact that the weight has made the performance more accessible, as I said in my first post in this topic ; when driving a GTR on track I can look to get that last few percent out where as in a Z4 the last few percent isn't anywhere near as accessible. If this means less bluntness and more entertainment then good for you.

I can only hope to reclaim some credibility from you in the near future.... :rofl:

 

[Herminator]

Ok so I've lost credibility as I own both cars and can give an informed opinion. Well that's logical.

How many times have you driven a GTR on road and track? Apparently you know more than a race car designer who's been in the game for 40 years, who clearly doesn't think that weight blunts it.

I wasn't trying to gain credibility, just trying to correct your misinformation.

Also I clearly said earlier that I give full agreement to the fact that the Z4M is an enjoyable car but enjoyment and lap times aren't always synonymous. What you interpret as "blunt" I interpret as accessible. As you can see I fully buy into the fact that the weight has made the performance more accessible, as I said in my first post in this topic ; when driving a GTR on track I can look to get that last few percent out where as in a Z4 the last few percent isn't anywhere near as accessible. If this means less bluntness and more entertainment then good for you.

I can only hope to reclaim some credibility from you in the near future.... :rofl:

Your informed opinion tells us you like both cars, they handle differently but you like that. The GTR is an awesome peace of engineering, I admire it, but I wouldn't want a GTR due to the way it produces its performance through a very clever drivetrain and suspension. I'd rather go the other direction, ie. towards a Lotus Elise but I like the usability of the Z4M.
What your informed opinion does not give you is a correct assumption on how the GTR performs as well as it does.
The engineers explanation leans more to marketing than anything else, imo. If any car weighed half as much as it does but everything else stayed, it would go quicker over a lap of a dry track. Bringing snow into the equation is just ridiculas.

Less weight is better isn't a Gran Turismo way of thinking, it's more of a Colin Chapman way of thinking.
If any car is born from the Gran Turismo generation it's the GTR, the menu system was designed by Polyphony....

 

[LeeZ4MR]

I adore the GTR and I have always preferred straight line speed over everything else(I loved my Cerbera for the same reason) so I completely respect it's performance, yet I hated my V8 M3 because of how heavy it was(1650kg).

So I am certainly in the camp of lighter is better though because weight for me ultimately blunts the driving experience for sure, still lust after the GTR like mad though! 8)

 

[Beedub]

babw I've been waiting for you to continue talking to me like I'm a GTR hater with no experience....

i owned one of the very First GTRs back in 09 ( nissan gave me some lovely memorabilia too, like a very cool Nismo helmet and some other bits that sit on my car memorabilia shelf) so unless something has drastically changed the car simply could NOT sustain hard use, so i DO have experience admitted my ownership was short lived as i couldn't afford to run both as my personal situation had changed dramatically, at the same time owning the z4 from pretty much new in 2007, In one instance the Gr6 ( i think its called or that revision back then ) heated up to a point which instantly meant the car needed an expensive service, whenever that temp range was hit the car had to be serviced otherwise the warranty was void...
Again not sure if thats changed but it just wasn't what i hoped it would be, it just wasn't the raw experience i wanted, From my experience the car Struggles to hide the onset of all that "intended" weight.

i kept the car i preferred.

my other car is a 4wd, PDK, suit the chelsea tractor just FINE

http://www.gtrfails.com

particularly this sentence.....

The fact is the Nissan GTR can only sustain its claimed performance for a very short period of time before it overheats and the driver is forced to slow, stop or damage the car.

 

[Beedub]

enjoyed the debate however.