[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

The difference between UK and US reviews is that over here all tests are conducted on normal surfaces and not a dragstrip, we also don't run our test from 5-60mph but from a complete stand still. All of these differences will give the opinion to the untrained eye that over here we stuck.

See footie, this is why I don't really read much of what you post because it simply seems unresearched or is an outright lie.

You do know the times I pulled from Motortrend have a video available, and it's not from a roll like you claim. In fact it was AUTOCAR that did a test from the "roll" on an airstrip (2nd run). The simple fact is that Motortrend tested the GTR, GT2, 599, and ZR1 and got WILDLY different results than AutoCar from basically the same test.

12.06 on the ZR1 is not even close to respectable, and that was Autocar's time. Say what you want, debate all you want, but you're simply wrong in this case. Autocar's time is horrible, and almost misrepresenting of the abilities of the ZR1.

[NewSong]

Here, you guys be the judge on whether MotorTrend's test seems "less credible" than Autocar's, or if you have an "untrained eye" like footie claims.


MotorTrend's Test:
[u2b]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OZlGMX8G3B4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OZlGMX8G3B4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/u2b]

AutoCar's Test:
[u2b]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD9AW-EB3vo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD9AW-EB3vo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/u2b]

1/4 mile-
MotorTrend's ZR1 time: 11.2
AutoCar's ZR1 time: 12.06

Not only that, but on AutoCar's test, the GT2 somehow "beats" the ZR1 and traps higher. WTF?

Almost a 1 second difference on exactly the same test.

Sorry, but the proof is there for all to see, AutoCar blows.

[footie]

NewSong,

As far as I'm aware the ZR1 used by Autocar was a reader's car on loan and the GT2 (I think) was supplied by Porsche. I would imagine that in the Motortrend test the ZR1 will probably have been supplied by GM. So what I am basically suggesting is that one might be a little stronger in performance than the other.

Another thing I have noticed in different reviews conducted throughout the world is that depending where the review is and the cars involved the usual thing is that the car that's manufactured in the country of the review generally performs at it's best.

Why I have no idea.

BTW, my comments previously were not referring to the ZR1 vs GT2 conducted by Autocar but more a general opinion of Autocar's abilities which I rate as very good.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by NewSong

1/4 mile-
MotorTrend's ZR1 time: 11.2
AutoCar's ZR1 time: 12.06

Not only that, but on AutoCar's test, the GT2 somehow "beats" the ZR1 and traps higher. WTF?

Almost a 1 second difference on exactly the same test.

Sorry, but the proof is there for all to see, AutoCar blows.

12.06 is TERRRIBLE. I'm guessing they didn't do any practice runs to learn the car. The C5 Z06 runs the 1/4 in the low 12s. The C6 Z06 is running in the low 11s.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by NewSong

Here, you guys be the judge on whether MotorTrend's test seems "less credible" than Autocar's, or if you have an "untrained eye" like footie claims.


MotorTrend's Test:
[u2b]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OZlGMX8G3B4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OZlGMX8G3B4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/u2b]

AutoCar's Test:
[u2b]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD9AW-EB3vo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD9AW-EB3vo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/u2b]

1/4 mile-
MotorTrend's ZR1 time: 11.2
AutoCar's ZR1 time: 12.06

Not only that, but on AutoCar's test, the GT2 somehow "beats" the ZR1 and traps higher. WTF?

Almost a 1 second difference on exactly the same test.

Sorry, but the proof is there for all to see, AutoCar blows.

+1

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

NewSong,

As far as I'm aware the ZR1 used by Autocar was a reader's car on loan and the GT2 (I think) was supplied by Porsche. I would imagine that in the Motortrend test the ZR1 will probably have been supplied by GM. So what I am basically suggesting is that one might be a little stronger in performance than the other.

If you're suggesting that GM "tuned" their ZR1 for the Motortrend review, and was playing on unfair grounds, then I have nothing more to say to you because that kind of allegation is laughable, and somewhat ironic in light of your "defense" of the GTR's Nurburgring times posted by Nissan.

footie, I generally think you're a good poster, but while I deal with outright facts (videos, official posted times) that anyone can review, a lot of what you posted above is just "conjecture" and "guessing", and can even be construed as malicious.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

12.06 is TERRRIBLE. I'm guessing they didn't do any practice runs to learn the car. The C5 Z06 runs the 1/4 in the low 12s. The C6 Z06 is running in the low 11s.

It's an extremely bad time to be sure.

The ZR1 has been regularly seen doing low 11's, and people who have learned to control all that power and put it to the wheels are able to get into the 10's bare stock:
http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet-C...lip-18137.html

That's a guy from CorvetteForums who I posted with over there.

I have no doubt that in a year or so when more ZR1's are out there and people learn more about the vehicle, the ZR1 will be a regular 10 second car.

[footie]

Originally Posted by NewSong

If you're suggesting that GM "tuned" their ZR1 for the Motortrend review, and was playing on unfair grounds, then I have nothing more to say to you because that kind of allegation is laughable, and somewhat ironic in light of your "defense" of the GTR's Nurburgring times posted by Nissan.

footie, I generally think you're a good poster, but while I deal with outright facts (videos, official posted times) that anyone can review, a lot of what you posted above is just "conjecture" and "guessing", and can even be construed as malicious.

All I was saying is that all manufacturers do supply their press cars in tip top health and I even suggested the same thing about Nissan, it's logical to expect any manufacturer, especially trying to post record times at the ring to make sure the car is performing at it's best. This is what I am suggesting about the ZR1 in the Motortrend video and the GT2 in the Autocar video as both were press cars.

Hack, maybe all the cars used in the Motortrend video were press cars. Please don't read things in my post that just isn't there. I'm only saying that it's possible the two ZR1 were performing differently, if I had a pound for every car that performed either better or worse than expected I would be a very rich man.

Why assume that because the ZR1 didn't perform as you thought that it's somehow Autocar's fault.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

All I was saying is that all manufacturers do supply their press cars in tip top health and I even suggested the same thing about Nissan[speculation], it's logical to expect any manufacturer, especially trying to post record times at the ring to make sure the car is performing at it's best. This is what I am suggesting about the ZR1 in the Motortrend video[speculation] and the GT2 in the Autocar video[speculation] as both were press cars.

Hack, maybe all the cars used in the Motortrend video were press cars. Please don't read things in my post that just isn't there. I'm only saying that it's possible the two ZR1 were performing differently[speculation], if I had a pound for every car that performed either better or worse than expected I would be a very rich man.

Why assume that because the ZR1 didn't perform as you thought that it's somehow Autocar's fault.

See what I mean?

100% speculation, ZERO fact. This is what makes it hard to even discuss any subject with you. First you suggest that GM "prepped" their car for the MotorTrend test, and now you're trying to say that MotorTrend got a "factory prepped" ZR1, and AutoCar got a "used" ZR1. Where is there any evidence to suggest either case? Why bring it up?

Most everyone who has commented on this thread knows that 12.06 is a ridiculous time for the ZR1 regardless if it's a press car/owners car/factory car/etc. You're speculating for no other reason, it seems, except to forgive AutoCar for their inaccurate 1/4 time. It's not like it's contrary to just MotorTrend, it's contrary to every other credible review of the car's 1/4th time. Anyway I'm done discussing this with you, I'd rather discuss this with more logical people.

[footie]

NewSong,

Of course it's spectulation, I am only giving a possible expectation for why the ZR1 didn't perform in their hands and the only reason why I came to their defence is the amount of excellent times their usually get from cars they test.

Did the GT2 perform correctly?

Had you checked other results from other tests conducted by Autocar and compared to other reviews?

I have and their times are consistent with what is expected and usually among the best in Europe.

I realise that Motortrend seem it be better than nearly everyone else, why this is I honestly don't know and to suggest a reason would be pure spectulation which I realise is something you would prefer me not to do, so I won't.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by footie

Did the GT2 perform correctly?

The GT2 in Autocar's test was slower than in some other tests. Motor Trend included.

Autocar's test was done on a concrete surface, an abandoned airstrip which likely sees very little maintenance. They specifically mention the surface condition in their follow-up to the video.

Motor Trend's test was done on an asphalt surface, Ford's Arizona Proving Grounds, which can operate 24/7 for certification purposes. And it's a high-grip surface. You'll find the fastest North American times for cars like the Murcielago, Ford GT, Enzo, CGT, etc, have all been done at this venue. When MT first tested the 2004 WRX STi and used comparison numbers for the Evo, they mentioned a caveat: the Evo's figures were done on a grippier surface. The Evo figures they used for comparison were from a 2003 shootout done at Ford's APG. In that test, the Evo did the 1/4 mile in 13.08. In two subsequent tests on dragstrips against the STi, the Evo MR did 13.3 both times. When tested head to head on the same surface, the MR was faster than the standard Evo.

Motor Trend also does correction for elevation and temperature. They may also time their cars with roll-out as on a dragstrip. Autocar does neither.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Guibo

The GT2 in Autocar's test was slower than in some other tests. Motor Trend included.

Autocar's test was done on a concrete surface, an abandoned airstrip which likely sees very little maintenance. They specifically mention the surface condition in their follow-up to the video.

Correct, this and almost all ultra high speed tests are conducted at Burlington Airbase. This was true for EVO's GTR vs Veyron where I might add both the Veyron and GTR didn't accelerate as well as expected.

As far as I am aware most other Autocar acceleration trials are conducted at Milbrook, this includes their famous 0-100-0 tests.

Originally Posted by Guibo

Motor Trend's test was done on an asphalt surface, Ford's Arizona Proving Grounds, which can operate 24/7 for certification purposes. And it's a high-grip surface. You'll find the fastest North American times for cars like the Murcielago, Ford GT, Enzo, CGT, etc, have all been done at this venue. When MT first tested the 2004 WRX STi and used comparison numbers for the Evo, they mentioned a caveat: the Evo's figures were done on a grippier surface. The Evo figures they used for comparison were from a 2003 shootout done at Ford's APG. In that test, the Evo did the 1/4 mile in 13.08. In two subsequent tests on dragstrips against the STi, the Evo MR did 13.3 both times. When tested head to head on the same surface, the MR was faster than the standard Evo.

Motor Trend also does correction for elevation and temperature. They may also time their cars with roll-out as on a dragstrip. Autocar does neither.

Well this might explain why MT are top of the charts when testing cars.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by footie

Correct, this and almost all ultra high speed tests are conducted at Burlington Airbase. This was true for EVO's GTR vs Veyron where I might add both the Veyron and GTR didn't accelerate as well as expected.

Bruntingthorpe, actually.

I think you're right about the Veyron/GT-R test. These cars benefit from AWD, which does aid in low-traction situations; the rear-engined GT2 also has some inherent advantage in this regard. Still, when looking at the 0-30 mph times for the GT-R at both venues, you can see that Ford's APG is much grippier.
Evo Mag, 0-30: 1.8s
MT, 0-31 (reprinted in German mag Auto Bild): 1.2s

The Veyron in the Evo test did 0-30 in 1.4s, slower than the GT-R in the MT test. If we look at these two numbers purely in a vacuum without regard to context of conditions, we'd conclude that either
1) the Veyron is slower than a GT-R (not likely!), or
2) Evo can't drive (even though the Veyron has a launch mode and no clutch pedal) as a result of ineptitude or bias.

Speaking of bias, doesn't the Autocar driver seem genuinely impressed by the ZR1 while chasing the Lambo? Sure seemed like it to me. And they gave a good drive review as well. As they did for the CTS-V. And Camaro SS. And Ford GT. And Ford Mustang.
They do generally like BMW's, but the X6 M came in for some pretty harsh criticism and a low overall evaluation. Some Audi models (A5) also fared poorly, as do some MB's (CLC: dated; buy another car instead). The Italians aren't immune either. Go check out the review on the Alfa Brera ("too slow, too fat and too dull to drive to cut it against the best in the class").

BTW, Autocar's ZR1 vs GT2 video is the first one showing that the ZR1 is faster at higher speeds. The German test at Nardo showed the GT2 being faster, as did the Motor Trend test (when looking at the high-speed figures re-published in Auto Bild).

[footie]

Originally Posted by Guibo

Bruntingthorpe, actually.

Thanks for correcting me on this, I couldn't quite remember the name but at least you knew where I meant.

Originally Posted by Guibo

I think you're right about the Veyron/GT-R test. These cars benefit from AWD, which does aid in low-traction situations; the rear-engined GT2 also has some inherent advantage in this regard. Still, when looking at the 0-30 mph times for the GT-R at both venues, you can see that Ford's APG is much grippier.
Evo Mag, 0-30: 1.8s
MT, 0-31 (reprinted in German mag Auto Bild): 1.2s

The Veyron in the Evo test did 0-30 in 1.4s, slower than the GT-R in the MT test. If we look at these two numbers purely in a vacuum without regard to context of conditions, we'd conclude that either
1) the Veyron is slower than a GT-R (not likely!), or
2) Evo can't drive (even though the Veyron has a launch mode and no clutch pedal) as a result of ineptitude or bias.

Again this help prove that the times produced by Autocar and EVO are simply down to the track conditions in which they test their cars and have nothing to do with poor driver skills and NewSong was suggesting.

Originally Posted by Guibo

Speaking of bias, doesn't the Autocar driver seem genuinely impressed by the ZR1 while chasing the Lambo? Sure seemed like it to me. And they gave a good drive review as well. As they did for the CTS-V. And Camaro SS. And Ford GT. And Ford Mustang.
They do generally like BMW's, but the X6 M came in for some pretty harsh criticism and a low overall evaluation. Some Audi models (A5) also fared poorly, as do some MB's (CLC: dated; buy another car instead). The Italians aren't immune either. Go check out the review on the Alfa Brera ("too slow, too fat and too dull to drive to cut it against the best in the class").

BTW, Autocar's ZR1 vs GT2 video is the first one showing that the ZR1 is faster at higher speeds. The German test at Nardo showed the GT2 being faster, as did the Motor Trend test (when looking at the high-speed figures re-published in Auto Bild).

Agreed, in general both magazine like American muscle and normally BMW stock with the possible exception being the two X5/6M cars. Audi is an oddity, they usually dislike them in single and group tests (excluding the R8, S4 and RS4) but really warm to them when running them long term, to me that means the judgement placed by some roadtesters is to quick and based of excitement within the first day.

Getting back to the GT2 vs ZR1, I might be wrong here but I understood the ZR1 to be slower when it selects top gear due to it's extremely long gearing and due to it's excessive amount of both power and torque it should have problems getting off the line cleanly. Based on the track surface used by Autocar and the well know winds the whip up there I not at all surprised that the Porsche won on the day.

[NewSong]

None of the above explains why the GT2 lost clearly to the ZR1 in the motortrend test, and why the GT2 performed so "well" on the AutoCar test. Stock for stock, and in nearly all mags, the ZR1 is faster in the 1/4 and traps higher (MotorTrend, jalopnik, dragtimes, Popular Mechanics).

Guibo, are you still trolling the GTR section at 6SpeedOnline? I think you could recruit footie.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by NewSong

None of the above explains why the GT2 lost clearly to the ZR1 in the motortrend test, and why the GT2 performed so "well" on the AutoCar test.

You think the GT2 performed so "well"? It got beat by the ZR1 in the rolling race. And look at the other figures for the GT2:
Autocar vs Motor Trend
0-60: 3.78 vs 3.4
0-100: 7.89 vs 7.3
1/4 mi: 11.83 @ 123.9 vs 11.4 @ 127.9

As mentioned, the GT2 has more weight over the rear driven wheels to aid traction on poor surfaces, and an idiot-proof launch control system. Yet on Bruntingthorpe, it was clearly slower than it was at Ford's APG. The differences in times can be completely attributable to surface conditions and correction factors.

Originally Posted by NewSong

Guibo, are you still trolling the GTR section at 6SpeedOnline? I think you could recruit footie.

"Trolling" says the guy who thinks a Zonda F Clubsport isn't street legal and thus shouldn't be used for comparison in 'Ring times. No, I don't need footie to hold off the likes of you, but he can do what he likes.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by Guibo

You think the GT2 performed so "well"? It got beat by the ZR1 in the rolling race. And look at the other figures for the GT2:
Autocar vs Motor Trend
0-60: 3.78 vs 3.4
0-100: 7.89 vs 7.3
1/4 mi: 11.83 @ 123.9 vs 11.4 @ 127.9

As mentioned, the GT2 has more weight over the rear driven wheels to aid traction on poor surfaces, and an idiot-proof launch control system. Yet on Bruntingthorpe, it was clearly slower than it was at Ford's APG. The differences in times can be completely attributable to surface conditions and correction factors.

No you just don't get it. I understand the factors of surface/temps/etc. What you're not getting is that all things equal, the GT2 still shouldn't win on EITHER surface. The same detriments that affected the ZR1 should've affected the GT2. The difference here, as I've stated before, was the drivers. The AutoCar driver simply didn't know how to launch a car that puts so much power to two wheels, a sentiment echoed by others in this very thread. They need better drivers. Motortrend has these drivers, and they are the better review outlet and provided a more accurate review of the ZR1's capabilities.

"Trolling" says the guy who thinks a Zonda F Clubsport isn't street legal and thus shouldn't be used for comparison in 'Ring times. No, I don't need footie to hold off the likes of you, but he can do what he likes.

You know Pagani has only made 10 F Clubsports, none of those samples are in the U.S, which is where I live. You want to explain to me how you DOT a car with only 10 production samples in existance? Like I said, it's not street legal until it's actually DOT'd, though it is a production car. It's like the M3 CSL, people who imported here from Europe had to modify the car to fit DOT standards.

As for 6SpeedOnline, if you're "handling" yourself, why is it you constantly find yourself defending your "points"? I don't think I've seen any post in the past week that agree with you on anything including your GTR fanboyism.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by footie

Getting back to the GT2 vs ZR1, I might be wrong here but I understood the ZR1 to be slower when it selects top gear due to it's extremely long gearing and due to it's excessive amount of both power and torque it should have problems getting off the line cleanly. Based on the track surface used by Autocar and the well know winds the whip up there I not at all surprised that the Porsche won on the day.

You're not wrong. The ZR1 has better gearing for acceleration compared to other Corvettes, but it's still taller than the GT2. And if the Z06's frontal area is anything to go by, it will have a worse overall drag number than the GT2. ~0.75 vs 0.66 for the GT2.
For launching, it is further handicapped against the GT2 by
1) poorer weight distribution
2) lower-aspect tires that are runflats; a softer sidewall would aid in traction at the start

On a good surface, it will cleanly beat the GT2 to 60. But right off the line, the GT2 is still quicker than the ZR1 (0.2s faster to 31 mph in the MT test).

[footie]

Originally Posted by NewSong

No you just don't get it. I understand the factors of surface/temps/etc. What you're not getting is that all things equal, the GT2 still shouldn't win on EITHER surface. The same detriments that affected the ZR1 should've affected the GT2. The difference here, as I've stated before, was the drivers. The AutoCar driver simply didn't know how to launch a car that puts so much power to two wheels, a sentiment echoed by others in this very thread. They need better drivers. Motortrend has these drivers, and they are the better review outlet and provided a more accurate review of the ZR1's capabilities.

You are quite welcome to your belief that MT's drivers are better than Autocar's. If you don't accept the explanations that we are giving then we can do nothing more.

Originally Posted by NewSong

You know Pagani has only made 10 F Clubsports, none of those samples are in the U.S, which is where I live. You want to explain to me how you DOT a car with only 10 production samples in existance? Like I said, it's not street legal until it's actually DOT'd, though it is a production car. It's like the M3 CSL, people who imported here from Europe had to modify the car to fit DOT standards.

As for 6SpeedOnline, if you're "handling" yourself, why is it you constantly find yourself defending your "points"? I don't think I've seen any post in the past week that agree with you on anything including your GTR fanboyism.

So what you are saying is that because the Zonda F Clubsport isn't sold in the US then it doesn't count. The last time I looked the US wasn't the center of the world and especially not for the best cars or drivers, no offence.

You have to face it that not on every occasion will the ZR1 win, yes it will the majority of the time but when track conditions are less than favourable it WILL struggle to put the power down and may ultimately lose to an equally quick car that may not suffer the same traction issues.

[NewSong]

Originally Posted by footie

You are quite welcome to your belief that MT's drivers are better than Autocar's. If you don't accept the explanations that we are giving then we can do nothing more.

Maybe it was just that particular driver. Clearly the same traction handicap experienced by the ZR1 wasn't as much of a factor on the GT2 in AutoCar's test. Why the difference? Driver is my guess. We can leave it at that.

So what you are saying is that because the Zonda F Clubsport isn't sold in the US then it doesn't count. The last time I looked the US wasn't the center of the world and especially not for the best cars or drivers, no offence.

First off, the last time I looked our best sports cars (Viper ACR, ZR1) are trouncing the Euro super cars pretty badly, and at less than half the price. You throw the Aero SSC in the mix, and we're dominating you guys. Need I even bring up the results from the FIA GT Round 4 Francorchamps where the Z06 made Audi, Ferrari, Porsche, and Aston Martin cry? No offense.

As for the F-Clubsport, you weren't even part of this discussion on 6SpeedOnline. However, to reiterate, Guibo our resident GTR fanboy (like you are here) stated the F-Clubsport was street legal, and I simply said it wasn't. We both live in different areas, so I suppose we're both right. I don't think that the U.S is the center of the world when it comes to motorsport, but I really don't care what the road rules are in the U.K either.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by NewSong

No you just don't get it. I understand the factors of surface/temps/etc. What you're not getting is that all things equal, the GT2 still shouldn't win on EITHER surface. The same detriments that affected the ZR1 should've affected the GT2. The difference here, as I've stated before, was the drivers.

Not necessarily. The GT2 has inherent characteristics that help it get better launches, particularly in traction-limited circumstances like you see at Bruntingthorpe. In the MT test, it got a better launch to 31 mph, after which point the ZR1 got enough traction to reel it in; the GT2 recorded better high-speed acceleration numbers however. In the Autocar test, the ZR1 didn't get a good enough launch due to the surface and possibly other factors (like wind); yet it still pulled on the GT2 at higher speeds and ultimately recorded a higher trap speed in the standing mile than the GT2.

Originally Posted by NewSong

You know Pagani has only made 10 F Clubsports, none of those samples are in the U.S, which is where I live.

But you don't live in Germany, where the Clubsport IS street legal, just as it is in other parts of Europe. You said it's not road legal. Clearly it is.
Just because a McLaren F1 was never officially imported into the USofA means we can't consider what its time might be on the Nordschleife??

Originally Posted by NewSong

As for 6SpeedOnline, if you're "handling" yourself, why is it you constantly find yourself defending your "points"? I don't think I've seen any post in the past week that agree with you on anything including your GTR fanboyism.

I'm more persistent than others. So what? I just like to talk cars.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by NewSong

Maybe it was just that particular driver. Clearly the same traction handicap experienced by the ZR1 wasn't as much of a factor on the GT2 in AutoCar's test. Why the difference? Driver is my guess. We can leave it at that.

We don't have to leave it at that. First you were saying you deal in facts, and now you are guessing at what might be the reason, yet staring right in front of you are plenty of other reasons:
1) surface conditions
2) correction factors
3) GT2 has better weight distribution for launches
4) GT2 has launch control
5) GT2 has lower Cd and likely total less drag
6) ZR1 is on stiff-sidewalled runflats with lower profile
7) GT2 also did poorly compared to the Motor Trend test

Originally Posted by NewSong

First off, the last time I looked our best sports cars (Viper ACR, ZR1) are trouncing the Euro super cars pretty badly, and at less than half the price.

ZR1 doesn't trounce the Enzo, Zonda Clubsport, or MC12. I wouldn't consider a 2-second gap to the CGT a trouncing by any means. If you look at the build quality and production volumes, the ACR and ZR1 have to be priced less than half; otherwise, who'd buy them?

Originally Posted by NewSong

As for the F-Clubsport, you weren't even part of this discussion on 6SpeedOnline. However, to reiterate, Guibo our resident GTR fanboy (like you are here) stated the F-Clubsport was street legal, and I simply said it wasn't. We both live in different areas, so I suppose we're both right.

No, you're wrong. To the market that matters (in this case Europe and Germany, within which the Nordschleife is located), the F Clubsport is road legal. Its time on the 'Ring is 100% legit.