ACR-X vs NISMO GT3 GT-R
- Thread starter ACRucrazy
- Start date
Is this the new Corvette? Can't tell any of these cars apart anym,ore...
Info
You must be registered for see images attach
At $250,000+ more than the ACR-X I am curious how these 2 cars would compare.
troublemaker
Enthusiast
To me they lose some of what makes he GTR sp ecial, an amazing all wheel drive system. I wonder how the 6 holds up to heat soaking.
This car is apparently a bargain, compared to the bento edition of GTR
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/first-production-nissan-juke-r-545-hp-rolls-215414955.html
http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/first-production-nissan-juke-r-545-hp-rolls-215414955.html
This made me do some more research.
The info/pics I see here: http://www.nismo.co.jp/en/products/GT3/
The pictures and specs look more serious than the article in the original post lead on.
Specifications of 2013 Model
DIMENSIONS
Engine model VR38DETT
Displacement 3,799cc
Power Over 405kw@6,500rpm（Over 550ps/6,500rpm）*1
Torque Over 637N・m @5,000rpm（Over 65.0kgf・m/5,000rpm）*1
Length 4,780mm
Width 2,036mm
Wheelbase 2,780mm
Front track 1,675mm
Rear track 1,680mm
Weight 1,300kg*1
Drive system 2WD（FR）
POWER TRAIN
Clutch disc Metal, 5.5-inch 4-plate
Transmission 6-speed sequential
BRAKE
Fr 6-piston caliper/Ventilated Disc Brake＆Pad
Rr 4-piston caliper/Ventilated Disc Brake＆Pad
SUSPENSION
Fr Double Wishbone
Rr Multi-link
TIRES
Fr 330/710-18
Rr 330/710-18
WHEELS
Fr 13.0J×18
Rr 13.0J×18
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
You must be registered for see images attach
Viper Grenade
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
- Posts
- 325
- Reaction score
- 0
It would be a good match up. The ACR-X has a lot more power but the GTR looks to be a bit lighter. I am sure Nissan will get it to the ring soon.
chorps
Enthusiast
This is a better matchup, only a 10 year difference: ;-)
2003 Dodge Viper Competition Coupe
Chassis
Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/vented disc
Tires F-R: 305/35 ZR18 - 345/30 ZR19
Engine
Type: V10
Displacement cu in (cc): 505 (8275)
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 520(388) / 5600
Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 540(732) / 4600
Redline at RPM: 6100
Exterior
Length × Width × Height in: 184.1 × 77.9 × 46.3
Weight lb (kg): 2995 (1360)
2003 Dodge Viper Competition Coupe
Chassis
Brakes F/R: ABS, vented disc/vented disc
Tires F-R: 305/35 ZR18 - 345/30 ZR19
Engine
Type: V10
Displacement cu in (cc): 505 (8275)
Power bhp (kW) at RPM: 520(388) / 5600
Torque lb-ft (Nm) at RPM: 540(732) / 4600
Redline at RPM: 6100
Exterior
Length × Width × Height in: 184.1 × 77.9 × 46.3
Weight lb (kg): 2995 (1360)
mnc2886
Enthusiast
SRT should take the current GTS-R, put the street engine in it with headers and borla like the ACR-X, and then sell 50 of them.
SRT should take the current GTS-R, put the street engine in it with headers and borla like the ACR-X, and then sell 50 of them.
No no no, they need to sell more, so someday I have a better chance at getting one. :wink:
I can't answer that having no experience with either. However the ACR-X has 120 hp on the CC, weight was the same, ACR-X was Gen IV and CC Gen III. Not to take away from the ACR-X, as it was an ACR, minus weight, plus cage and engine/pcm revisions for the added HP, the CC was a "more of" (if thats possible) a legit race car.
The CC has different body work all together, wider, 1" wider 3 piece BBS wheels. The cage I believe is much more integrated into the car (I believe its stitch welded to the chassis in many points from what I recall seeing at Archer Racing) and of course the x brace. All of the bushings in the car are spherical, no rubber bushings. The CC has a MoTeC system in it. Again the CC is much more of a specialty race car.
The ACR-X is very badass, but part of the reason the cost on it was kept down (to even cheaper than the CC) was because it was more of an "off the shelf" car.
My gut tells me the only thing the CC gives up to the ACR-X is HP.
Last edited:
chorps
Enthusiast
I can't answer that having no experience with either. However the ACR-X has 140 hp on the CC, weight was the same, ACR-X was Gen IV and CC Gen III. Not to take away from the ACR-X, as it was an ACR, minus weight, plus cage and engine/pcm revisions for the added HP, the CC was a "more of" (if thats possible) a legit race car.
The CC has different body work all together, wider, 1" wider 3 piece BBS wheels. The cage I believe is much more integrated into the car (I believe its stitch welded to the chassis in many points from what I recall seeing at Archer Racing) and of course the x brace. All of the bushings in the car are spherical, no rubber bushings. The CC has a MoTeC system in it. Again the CC is much more of a specialty race car.
The ACR-X is very badass, but part of the reason the cost on it was kept down (to even cheaper than the CC) was because it was more of an "off the shelf" car.
My gut tells me the only thing the CC gives up to the ACR-X is HP.
ACR-X is about 3200 pounds, 200 more than the Comp Coupe.
Here are the results of both cars on track together....
https://www.box.com/shared/nsbdncg7y6c66rapc9x9
My experience watching them both on track suggests that the results posted from TMS are representative....not an exception. ACR-X s tend to be in front. Depends on who's drivin' 'em of course but statistics give the nod to the ACR-X methinks.
I recall the CC being 3k but I thought there was a weight penalty after the first year and they had to weigh over 3100 while the ACR-X is advertised at 3190. Regardless the CC should be lighter, but at this point I am unsure by how much, if any at all.
As far as the ACR-X in front as some are saying, that power the X packs is wicked.
SoCal Rebell
Enthusiast
I posed this question when the ACR-X came out, a person who owns both the Comp Coupe and an ACR-X said the ACR-X was about 2 seconds faster on the same track on the same day. He attributed the better lap times to more HP and better tires.
Curiosity has me wonder what the ACR-X wheels/tires on the CC would do in that scenario and vice versa.
Some GT-U Comp Coupes will be running 700+rwhp/7500 RPM engines. There was one CC at TMS that was running one. It was amazing how fast that car pulled in the straights. As soon as the CC guys get comfortable with the added HP and using it in the turns as well as the straights, I believe the lap times differences will change
IMO and after watching them in person, I don't think the X can compete with a 700 whp, sequential trans. Comp Coupe.....
Now if the X wasn't a "spec racer" and it could be modified......
IMO and after watching them in person, I don't think the X can compete with a 700 whp, sequential trans. Comp Coupe.....
Now if the X wasn't a "spec racer" and it could be modified......
SoCal Rebell
Enthusiast
Some GT-U Comp Coupes will be running 700+rwhp/7500 RPM engines. There was one CC at TMS that was running one. It was amazing how fast that car pulled in the straights. As soon as the CC guys get comfortable with the added HP and using it in the turns as well as the straights, I believe the lap times differences will change
IMO and after watching them in person, I don't think the X can compete with a 700 whp, sequential trans. Comp Coupe.....
Now if the X wasn't a "spec racer" and it could be modified......
Wow 700+ RWHP is some serious power and a sequential also, that is mega fast.
Similar threads
