The Chevrolet Corvette, known colloquially as the Vette or Chevy Corvette, is a sports car manufactured by Chevrolet. The car has been produced through seven generations. Two highly hyped sports cars thunder to a close finish in this Motor Trend comparison between a 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and a 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo. We are passionate about all things automotive and are the leading provider of Mustang, Challenger, Raptor, Camaro and Corvette parts and accessories.

Chevrolet Corvette Z0. Nissan GT- R Nismo Comparison. Free Price Quote From a Local Dealer.

View Special Offers. No Obligation, Fast & Simple Free New Car Quote. Among the automakers, the automotive media, and the fans, new vehicles face great expectations from the moment their existence is revealed. Speculation and bench racing run rampant as we all try to infer from the available data how a vehicle should perform and how it will compare to the best in the segment. This prejudgment is no better illustrated than in the realm of sports cars, which brings us to these two perfect examples. Both the Chevrolet Corvette Z0. Nissan GT- R NISMO were among the most anticipated sports cars of recent years.

The former sees a thoroughly improved chassis and interior matched to an even more capable drivetrain and suspension that promise to steal the mantle of supercar- killer from the latter, a no- holds barred rethink of the dominant supercar- killer of the past decade. Both cars promise performance normally reserved for cars two and three times the price, and both deliver in markedly different ways. From Chevrolet, we find a traditional formula writ for the 2. A supercharged 6. V- 8 in the front drives a seven- speed manual transaxle that attempts to put 6.

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 nearly slick tires, and Chevrolet’s Z0. Stage III aerodynamics package. A twin- turbocharged 3. V- 6 sends power to a six- speed dual- clutch automatic in the tail that then routes power primarily to the rear wheels but constantly monitors and redistributes torque to the front wheels as needed for maximum performance. The hand of Nissan’s NISMO performance department can be seen in the car’s increased output of 6. As it has from the R3. GT- R’s beginning in 2.

Japan), Nissan has made continual improvements to the GT- R NISMO’s complex software, even midyear. In this case, it means tweaks to the engine control software to eliminate a slight plateau in midrange power output, something we noticed on an early 2.

Check out the Chevrolet Corvette Z06 review at CARandDRIVER.com. Use our Car Buying Guide to research Chevrolet Corvette Z06 prices, specs, photos, videos, and more. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06, Dodge Viper ACR, and Porsche GT3 RS, not only represent the current tip of the their companies' performance but are the fastest normally. He’s talking about one of the motoring delights of 2017: the astonishing Alfaholics GTA-R 290.

August. The result is plainly evident at the test track and from behind the wheel. From a standing start, the 3,8. NISMO hits 6. 0 mph in the same 2. What plateau? Good stuff, you say, but clearly the Z0.

NISMO. You would be wrong. Z0. 6 fans will no doubt notice that’s a tenth of a second slower on both counts and 1. Z0. 6 we tested (MT February 2.

The reason for the discrepancy, we believe, is aerodynamics. The first Z0. 6 was outfitted with the Stage II aerodynamic kit, but this car features the Stage III kit, which adds a significantly taller rear wing and front splitter extensions. Although good for high- speed handling, the additional downforce also means additional drag. As for comparing it to the NISMO, the . Its massive carbon- ceramic brakes; wider, stickier front tires; and lower curb weight all contributed to a significantly shorter stopping distance. From 6. 0 mph, the Z0.

The steel- braked NISMO needed 9. However, these cars were not designed for drag racing, even if they happen to be quite good at it. These are street- legal track cars. They’re made for corners, and they’re very good with those, too.

The NISMO’s 1. 0. Although its figure- eight lap time was two- tenths of a second slower than the other NISMO, its 0. GT- R (up from 0.

Both deliver performance typically reserved for cars two and three times the price. Sticky as the GT- R is, it’s no match for the Z0. As it stands, the Z0. Porsche 9. 18 Spyder.

With a 2. 2. 3- second lap at 1. Z0. 6 and substantially grippier (up from 0. Nforce 650I Sli Bios Update.

Tracking the data, we see the Corvette achieve higher speeds in the straights and brake later and harder than the NISMO, and it carries more speed around the corners. All this despite a frustrating but mild mid- corner oversteer that, if not managed, easily becomes a spin. On a simple skidpad, the Z0.

Unfortunately for the Z0. We brought the cars to historic Willow Springs to let their monstrous power and grip loose on the Big Track, colloquially known as the “Fastest Road in the West.” At 2. For this, we brought in our favorite pro driver, Randy Pobst, who turned an impressive 1: 2.

NISMO but only a 1: 2. Z0. 6. How did that happen? We were as surprised as you. The Z0. 6 has obvious weight, power, and grip advantages, and yet it lost by more than a second. In fact, it barely beat the even less powerful (and lighter) Porsche 9. GT3’s lap time despite a whopping 1.

Here’s what the data showed: The Z0. NISMO and carried more speed through the middle of most corners, but the NISMO was back on the throttle sooner and carried more speed out. What’s more, the NISMO was significantly faster on the straights, besting the Z0.

Best we can figure, the answer is in the aerodynamics. The Z0. 6’s big front splitter and vertical rear wing create downforce that helped the car carry more speed mid- corner, but the drag they create held it back on the straights. This wasn’t an issue on the figure eight, as the speeds were significantly lower. To verify, we removed the clear Gurney flap center piece on the rear wing and had Randy give it another go. As we predicted, the Z0. Add to that the Z0. It felt faster . It doesn’t understeer; the front has tremendous grip.

I’d put a little understeer into it to settle down the rear.” He followed that with: “On the laps where I used PTM (Chevrolet’s Performance Traction Management), I found myself leaning on the stability control. I hate doing that, but it controlled the oversteer.” He also preferred running the car in Sport handling mode rather than Track, as he found Track’s suspension settings much too stiff.

The pedal feel, the stopping power, they’re way better than the GT- R’s.” And: “The Z0. It’s a challenge. The GT- R is too boring. And I love the manual shifter. It’s old- school. I’m old- school.”He was less animated about the GT- R.

They took some of the understeer out from the last one we tested. It’s better balanced. I’d love to see some cup tires and some bigger brakes on it.

It could handle them. The power delivery is better, too.”The NISMO is all business, never evoking as much emotional response. With the shock of the track results still front of mind, Carlos Lago and I set off for one of California’s best driving roads to determine whether the track results would be reflected in the real world.

There it became a much closer competition. We hemmed and hawed, discussing how each car’s strengths and weaknesses balanced out the other’s. Lago figured he’d be quicker in the NISMO, owing to its incredible ability to pull out of corners at warp speed. To me, the Z0. 6’s better brakes made me more confident and allowed me to carry more speed into the corners, where the massive grip would carry me through quicker. The mid- corner oversteer that was so obvious at the track was nowhere to be found on the road. We agreed the NISMO’s higher seating position gave better outward visibility but made the car feel more top- heavy and imparted the sensation it was rolling over much more than the lower, racier Z0. It was also hard to ignore the NISMO’s extra weight, both under braking and in corners.

In the end, we agreed the Z0. When it came time to make the long drive home, it was an easier decision for me.

The Z0. 6’s third- generation magnetorheological shock absorbers remain the best in the business and make the car a far more comfortable ride on the street than the stiff NISMO, even with that car’s Comfort suspension setting. The NISMO’s insistence on chasing every single groove in the pavement also gets old quickly. Sure, the Z0. 6’s manual transmission was more work in traffic, but a reasonably light clutch made it mostly a non- issue. More frustrating was the heat radiating through the firewall and center tunnel when stuck in traffic; it cooked my feet first and then heated up the whole cabin. At freeway speeds, there’s enough airflow under the car to keep it in check, but at rush hour, there’s nothing you can do but turn up the AC while you creep along.

When it came time to tally up the score, we found ourselves with a doozy.

The 2. 01. 5 Corvette Z0. LT4 V8. Engines are assembled on movable pallets with all necessary monitoring equipment to speed up the process of switching engines in and out of dyno cells. What used to take an entire day now takes just a couple hours. Back in 2. 00. 8, even when the U. S. By 2. 00. 9, the project was underway. The development team, led by Jordan Lee and John Rydzewski, considered all options, but the lightweight, compact, power- dense small- block was a shoo- in.

It was the best option for packing enough power under the Corvette’s low- slung hood, and the recent addition of direct injection opened up even more room to make power. John Rydzewski (left) and Jordan Lee are responsible for the small- block development. They are standing in one of the dozens of dyno cells at GM’s Powertrtain Facility in Pontiac, Michigan. The ducting behind them is the combustion air unit that feeds the engines. Dyno operators can vary the temperature, pressure, and dew point of incoming air to simulate extreme cold, humidity, and altitude. Some test cells go to - 4.

Fahrenheit, but they wouldn’t tell us to what extreme they take their altitude tests. Because the engine was destined for the Z0. LS7, so the initial target, shaped in part by 0–6. When the supercharger development came through with tremendous airflow numbers, engineers knew they’d be able to blow the LS7 away and spent time tuning the camshaft to fatten up the powerband, where drivers spend most of their time. The result is an engine that beats the LS7’s peak torque by 1,5. Turbo’s 5. 20hp peak output by around 4,0.

C6 ZR1’s LS9 for much of the powerband. Right out of the box, in 2.

Z0. 6 was breaking C6 ZR1 lap times on GM’s test track before suspension and tire tuning even got into full swing. When it was happy with the results, Chevrolet announced the Z0. LT4 produces 6. 50 hp at 6,4. Here are the engineers and the components that got them there. SHORT- BLOCK. According to John Rydzewski, assistant chief engineer for small- block V8s, the Gen 5 LT1 was a great foundation for building the LT4.

In a truck towing a trailer, an engine could be at wide- open throttle (WOT) for 1. How long could a Z0. WOT without running out of road or attracting a lot of law- enforcement attention? One issue that faced engineers was equalizing the pressure across different parts of the crankcase. The Gen 5 block has bulkhead breathing cavities just above the cross- bolts on the nodular- iron main caps to allow air to circulate between cylinder banks, yet that proved to be insufficient on the LT4. Because all oil drainback feeds through the center of the block, differences in crankcase pressure can prevent oil from draining properly, causing the PCV to suck up oil rather than crankcase gases. The solution was simple: two holes, roughly 5.

A PCV separator, which is unique to the LT4, was developed to keep oily air from being drawn through the intake, where it could end up collecting on the back of the intake valves. A little bit of oil on a port- injected engine can help lubricate valves, but because all Gen 5 V8s are direct injected, there’s no fuel washing the back of the intake valve. That means oil in the PCV system can end up sticking to the back of the hot intake valves impeding airflow and eventually preventing the valves from seating properly. We spoke with Mike Garza, design system engineer for the block, crank, cylinder head, valvetrain, and lubrication system, who told us that a forged LT1 crankshaft would fail during extreme dyno tests when subjected to LT4 levels of power, so they engineered a unique crankshaft. Compared to the LT1, it has increased rolling loads (the amount of force applied to the crank fillets). Steel wheels are rolled over the fillet at an angle to extend the fatigue life. Because the cranks were failing at the same spot at the rear of the block, the lightening hole at the last rod journal was eliminated and tungsten slugs were added to the No.

Mike Garza with the LT4’s unique piston and rod. The last Z0. 6 engine, the LS7, used titanium connecting rods to help balance its larger pistons, while the LT4 uses powdered- metal rods that get additional machining to remove mass before they are shot- peened. The forged piston has a slightly different topography than the cast LT1 piston to lower the compression ratio to 1. Ring lands are hard- anodized. The small end of the rod is tapered and the wristpin uses a diamond- like carbon coating to reduce friction. The LT4’s forged crankshaft eliminates one of the connecting- rod journal lightening holes for additional strength. CYLINDER HEADS AND VALVETRAIN.

The LT4’s cylinder heads are very similar to the LT1 because the two were developed in tandem. More than 6 million hours of engine analysis went into the Gen 5 engine, with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) used to design the intake and exhaust ports digitally before they were ever cast in aluminum. The results are ports and combustion chambers that are efficient and flow a tremendous amount of air, even more than the LS9. The design of the combustion chamber gives the charge- air- mixture motion that ensures combustion starts in the center of the chamber. Because of the increased air volume added by the supercharger, compression is 1. LT1. You’d have a hard time telling an LT4 head from an LT1 head at first glance, although there are casting indicators that allow the milling machines to identify between parts.

The valve angles are the same as the LT1, at 1. LT4 heads to use a lot of the same machining as the higher- volume V8s like the 5. L and 6. 2. L Ecotec. Chevrolet Silverado, Tahoe, and Suburban, as well as their counterparts at GMC. Simply put, without the volume of the truck V8s and the economy of scale that affords the Corvette team, the C7 would have been a lot more expensive. Unlike the LT1 heads, which are cast in 3. LT4 heads are rotocast using 3.

T6 aluminum alloy to better withstand the increased combustion loads. The LT4 also uses titanium intake valves and corresponding valve seats to get reciprocating mass down. The LT4 has the same 6,6. LT1, so the two engines use the same valvesprings. However, because the intake charge is under boost, the LT4 uses less lift, 0. LT1. The supercharger ensures the engine is ingesting much more air and fuel compared to the LT1, so the exhaust got a 1. The 0. 5. 51- inch lift on the LT1 intake and the LT4 exhaust is no coincidence; it’s the limit of the Active Fuel Management (AFM) lifters.

The AFM system allows half of the engine to shut off by controlling oil to the four sets of lifters. With the lifters collapsed, the cam’s lift isn’t transferred to the valves and fuel is also shut off for those cylinders while the rest of the engine continues to run as a V4. The LT4 was even tested to operate in V4 mode under boost, but it was not found to be more efficient that way. With a small frontal area, low- drag bodywork, and a tall cruising gear in both the seven- speed manual and eight- speed automatic, the Z0. AFM mode for fuel economy unheard of in a car at its performance level.

LT4 heads get additional exhaust lift and cam duration, with slightly less intake lift. Note the three- sided lobe at the rear for the direct- injection fuel pump. LUBRICATION. Calibrated with a spring that determines the pressure curve, an active displacement oil pump unique to the LT4 helps increase efficiency. For normal operation, the pump provides 4. As engine speed goes up, bearings require more oil, so pressure increases to the 6. In case of spring failure, the pump defaults to the higher pressure.

Alan Rice worked with the lubrication system and PCV system on LT4, both in computer simulation and on dyno tilt stands to ensure the extreme cornering and braking forces of racing don’t starve the engine for oil. Adding power adds heat, and not just in places you’d expect it.

Oil squirters help cool the piston from underneath, which means more heat is absorbed by the oil.