Nissan GT-R might not be as under-rated as we all had suspected:

[gbb357]

Nissan GT-R and Porsche 911 Turbo dyno results:
There’s something very puzzling about Nissan’s all new GT-R supercar. Its official output figures read 480hp and 588Nm (434lb-ft) of torque and its mass registers at 1,723kg, but it can still outrun the 911 Turbo to 60mph even though the Porsche weighs in at a lower 1,633 and has a higher torque rating of 620Nm (457lb-ft).

Daryl Alison of JSpecConnect has now taken one of the first U.S.-delivered cars for a dyno run and compared with a 911 Turbo to find out what gives. You may recall that late last year, a GT-R in Japan was tested using a Dynapack dynamometer ( a dyno that connects to the actual wheel hubs of the car) and showed a peak output of 475hp at the hubs. Unfortunately, the credibility and accuracy of the test could never be confirmed.

The latest round of testing was done by the guys at Harman Motive in Torrance, California, and was completed using a Mustang MD-AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer with rollers. A Dynapack dynamometer was also used for completeness.

On the Mustang dyno, the GT-R registered a peak output of 406hp at 6,400rpm and 560Nm (414lb-ft) of torque at 3,800rpm. Once you factor in the parasitic losses of the drivetrain, these numbers are fully in line with Nissan’s official figures. On the same dyno, the 997 Porsche 911 Turbo almost completely matched the GT-R. The power curves of the two cars looking almost identical.

The final check was done using the Dynapack dyno. Here the GT-R measured a peak output of 452hp and 606Nm (448lb-ft) of torque at the hubs, which is reasonable given the higher reading expected due to the elimination of the tires and several internal variations in the way power is calculated.

The final conclusion is that Nissan’s power figures are an accurate representation of the GT-Rs might, and as brilliant as the new twin-turbo V6 is equal credit must be given to the car’s new launch control system, dual-clutch gearbox and ATTESA-ETS AWD system as these are what help give the car its mystifying track times.

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/1273/gtrdyno01in6.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1024/gtrdyno02ec9.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3292/gtrdyno03ps1.jpg

[MrHarris]

Awesome, now why does the GT-R haul ass weighing at 3800lbs? :confused:

[///Mantis]

read the last sentence

[swamp2]

There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

[gbb357]

There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

There are two dyno results on two different cars with similar power. 997TT is around 400hp on the wheels and the GTR is 406hp on the wheels as well and they are both rated at 480hp and 485hp, do the math. Please try reading the article first and look at the graphs before you dismiss this. And also read the last sentence.:) BTW, you easilly accepted the first dyno results as facts but you don't believe this one, why is that. Just because you don't agree with it.:rolleyes:

[jaiman]

There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

here we go again with the N-ring car and magazine test cars being ringers...

[MShift]

thats whp, not crank hp

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

For those among us who don't take being wrong as a constitutional crisis, this is pretty good evidence - especially when considered along with the previous body of evidence and logic that says the GT-R is exactly what it purports to be: Namely, an inexpensive Porsche Turbo with a terrific gearbox, better torque apportionment and an engine that isn't hung out in another zip code.

Swamp, you of all people should take heart from the performance of this car. With a fairly significant power to weight disadvantage, it runs pretty much even with a Tiptronic Turbo in a drag race, and the Tip is quite a bit quicker than the stick Porsche because of static boost. You've been raving about how good these new gearboxes are (with no argument from me), and when proof shows up you call it a power advantage. Sheesh.

Bruce

Edit: PS - "Drag race" - meaning from a dead stop. From a roll, every single data point we have is that the Porsche walks on the Nissan, just as it should.

[luckistryke]

' an engine that isn't hung out in another zip code.'

hahahhaha good one

[swamp2]

Bruce (and others), you are still missing my points. What a surprise...

gbb: I read the article. I am not dismissing anything, I am simply saying that dynos alone do not make for PROOF. I also don't buy their conclusion that they know either of the cars drivetrain losses accurately enough to calculate crank figures from wheel figures. Did they use the exact same drivetrain losses? More for the GT-R, less? This is very important to BACK calculate the crank figures. If you are off even 1% here and 1% somewhere else that is 10 hp. Lastly on this point, from it's extra driveshafts, the GT-R should have a bit higher drivetrain losses than the Porsche all else being equal.

A dyno result is interesting and generally valid when run with great care back to back with another vehicle. This does count as evidence toward the GT-R not being under-rated but you simply can not deny that a A-B dyno comparison is NOT evidence by itself for an under or over rating. What if this car pulled a 4.1 0-60 and 12.2 quarter mile (just for example)? That is the CRUCIAL question here. As I stated, and will state again, I'd LOVE to see real performance numbers for that exact car (both cars actually!). I wonder why these CRUCIAL pieces of information are missing. It sure is not some grand conspiricy but it is odd, they had the cars, why not make some acceleration runs?

Also what is up with the peak torque figures coming up almost the same? That does not really jive.

Hmmm what's next? Last I checked (straight from the article...) 997TT specs vs. GT-R the TT has a 23 ft-lb advantage and carries about 200 lb less weight. Sure the DCT may be good for about that effective amount 20 ft lb or so (IF NISSAN is totally off about their .2 second shift time, which I think they are, it simply has to be better).

I know I should not need to, and no matter how many times I say it, it seems to fall on deaf ears. The GT-R is a fantastic car, it is full of great technology and innovation and I really like the car. The existing tests have all shown a pretty blistering fast car. I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.

[gbb357]

Bruce (and others), you are still missing my points. What a surprise...

gbb: I read the article. I am not dismissing anything, I am simply saying that dynos alone do not make for PROOF. I also don't buy their conclusion that they know either of the cars drivetrain losses accurately enough to calculate crank figures from wheel figures. Did they use the exact same drivetrain losses? More for the GT-R, less? This is very important to BACK calculate the crank figures. If you are off even 1% here and 1% somewhere else that is 10 hp. Lastly on this point, from it's extra driveshafts, the GT-R should have a bit higher drivetrain losses than the Porsche all else being equal.

A dyno result is interesting and generally valid when run with great care back to back with another vehicle. This does count as evidence toward the GT-R not being under-rated but you simply can not deny that a A-B dyno comparison is NOT evidence by itself for an under or over rating. What if this car pulled a 4.1 0-60 and 12.2 quarter mile (just for example)? That is the CRUCIAL question here. As I stated, and will state again, I'd LOVE to see real performance numbers for that exact car (both cars actually!). I wonder why these CRUCIAL pieces of information are missing. It sure is not some grand conspiricy but it is odd, they had the cars, why not make some acceleration runs?

Also what is up with the peak torque figures coming up almost the same? That does not really jive.

Hmmm what's next? Last I checked (straight from the article...) 997TT specs vs. GT-R the TT has a 23 ft-lb advantage and carries about 200 lb less weight. Sure the DCT may be good for about that effective amount 20 ft lb or so (IF NISSAN is totally off about their .2 second shift time, which I think they are, it simply has to be better).

I know I should not need to, and no matter how many times I say it, it seems to fall on deaf ears. The GT-R is a fantastic car, it is full of great technology and innovation and I really like the car. The existing tests have all shown a pretty blistering fast car. I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.

Swamp you're really reaching here. You want to see the performance numbers for every car that is dynoed for proof that it is accurate, are you kidding me. With that logic then, why would you believe the other dyno test that you originally posted if it did'nt have any performance numbers either. And both cars are AWD, why should the GTR have a much higher drivetrain loss? With these figures, the GTR is losing about 17%, that sounds reasonble to me. We're not talking about performance figures right now, simply the dyno test. Again, why would you believe the other dyno test that you concluded to be "massively under-rated" and not believe this one. When this one not only has two dyno test but also has another car with almost identical power to compare with.

[jaiman]

I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.

So in order to prove the car is not under-rated one would need to Dyno a 911tt and GT-R on the same day, same dyno, then run 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, 0-150-0, and the N-ring using those same cars. Even then if the GT-R showed equivalent dyno numbers to the 911 and put up the better performance numbers it still wouldn't convince you that the "evidence for an under-rating" was you misinterpreting data.

[devo]

After further thought, I do not see why it may be hard for one to believe that the GT-R is not underrated. As we discussed during almost any in-gear acceleration test the 911 will clearly walk the GT-R. The benefit on the track is, in a great part, simply due to Nissan tailoring this car to be more track focused. Porsche softened their turbo to market more of the Mercedes (Grandpa crowd).

Any benefits from a drag/dig race are also simply due to launch control and quicker shifts. I mean, let's face it, the GT-R is not spanking the 911 in any drag runs, it just edges it out. If it did not have DSG it would simply lose.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't SA conduct their own test of the GT-R where it ran a 7:50 compared to a similar run by the 911?

Nissan, like every manufacturer, has created their marketing hype using controlled circumstances to achieve their intended goals. In the real world (street) the GT-R is not going to stand up to the 911tt (even, in softer form) as well, imo.

[BMW335icDDS]

After further thought, I do not see why it may be hard for one to believe that the GT-R is not underrated. As we discussed during almost any in-gear acceleration test the 911 will clearly walk the GT-R. The benefit on the track is, in a great part, simply due to Nissan tailoring this car to be more track focused. Porsche softened their turbo to market more of the Mercedes (Grandpa crowd).

Any benefits from a drag/dig race are also simply due to launch control and quicker shifts. I mean, let's face it, the GT-R is not spanking the 911 in any drag runs, it just edges it out. If it did not have DSG it would simply lose.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't SA conduct their own test of the GT-R where it ran a 7:50 compared to a similar run by the 911?

Nissan, like every manufacturer, has created their marketing hype using controlled circumstances to achieve their intended goals. In the real world (street) the GT-R is not going to stand up to the 911tt (even, in softer form) as well, imo.


Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.

[southlight]

:popcorn: Beer anyone?


Best regards, south

[///Mantis]

Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.
i think the GTR is slower than 997tt without tranny, or without engine

[gbb357]

Just a little bit off topic. On the M3 vs Vette thread, you posted that the reason why the M3 is as quick if not quicker than the Vette to 60mph or even the 1/4mile even though it's about 500lbs heavier, 20hp less, and at least 100lbs-ft of torque less than the Vette, is because it can put the power better on the ground than the Vette. My point is, this logic can and should apply to the GTR as well. This could explain why it matches the 997TT on acceleration times if not better as well as the other performance figures including The Ring time.

P.S.

And remember that the 0-60 times that are being compared for the M3 vs Vette are done with regular 6spd manual tranny not with the M3's DCT with launch control, so the argument of the M3 having a better launch does not apply. It's all a matter of driver skills.

[devo]

Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.

I think that I speak from some experience as I have owned three 997s (2) 997S's and a 997tt. I am also getting a GT-R in June, so I believe that I would consider myself a realist. The gearbox is part of the car, but without it, the GT-R's engine would not so easily beat the 997tt's engine. That is what this thread is essentially about.

And, your last statement is absolutely false. The GT-R will not beat the 997tt in every discipline. The most important every day performance benchmark on the street is roll on/in gear acceleration. The GT-R will simply get spanked there everytime by the 911. 3495 lbs. and more torque Porsche vs. 3873 +/- lbs. GT-R.

[devo]

i think the GTR is slower than 997tt without tranny, or without engine

That is not true. The GT-R is faster than everything car on the planet even without any gas. And, it will beat the 997tt twice as bad!

[dechoong]

The gearbox is part of the car, but without it, the GT-R's engine would not so easily beat the 997tt's engine. That is what this thread is essentially about.

And, your last statement is absolutely false. The GT-R will not beat the 997tt in every discipline. The most important every day performance benchmark on the street is roll on/in gear acceleration. The GT-R will simply get spanked there everytime by the 911. 3495 lbs. and more torque Porsche vs. 3873 +/- lbs. GT-R.

I agree. I'm looking forward to a fairer comparison when Porsche releases the 997tt with PDK. There's no way a 6 speed manual or an outdated 5 speed autobox from Mercedes can match the GT-R's dual clutch shift speed.

[gbb357]

Here's the original post from Edmunds Insideline with video.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=125172?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*#34

[spearfisher]

nice find

[swamp2]

Swamp you're really reaching here. You want to see the performance numbers for every car that is dynoed for proof that it is accurate, are you kidding me. With that logic then, why would you believe the other dyno test that you originally posted if it did'nt have any performance numbers either. And both cars are AWD, why should the GTR have a much higher drivetrain loss? With these figures, the GTR is losing about 17%, that sounds reasonble to me. We're not talking about performance figures right now, simply the dyno test. Again, why would you believe the other dyno test that you concluded to be "massively under-rated" and not believe this one. When this one not only has two dyno test but also has another car with almost identical power to compare with.

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but I have long ago moved away from my opinion that GT-R is "massively under-rated". I have made this crystal clear in about 30 posts already. Just stop with that.

The GT-R should have a higher drivetrain loss from its extra fore-aft axle system. Front engine, rear transmission WITH extra shaft from rear transaxle to front diff! This is very different than the 997TT system.

If you can read you will note I never in ANY WAY implied that I don't believe this dyno test. I am simply saying this is only one small and fairly insufficient piece of data.

Dyno tests get you wheel or hub power torque ONLY, power at the wheels as well as crank figures are then CALCULATED with a good of a GUESS as possible as to the total loss. What don't you get about that?

[gbb357]

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but I have long ago moved away from my opinion that GT-R is "massively under-rated". I have made this crystal clear in about 30 posts already. Just stop with that.

The GT-R should have a higher drivetrain loss from its extra fore-aft axle system. Front engine, rear transmission WITH extra shaft from rear transaxle to front diff! This is very different than the 997TT system.

If you can read you will note I never in ANY WAY implied that I don't believe this dyno test. I am simply saying this is only one small and fairly insufficient piece of data.

Dyno tests get you wheel or hub power torque ONLY, power at the wheels as well as crank figures are then CALCULATED with a good of a GUESS as possible as to the total loss. What don't you get about that?

Again, this "insufficient piece of data" is no different than the one you posted that is also insufficient and yet you believe and 100% support the one you posted. Why is that?

[swamp2]

So in order to prove the car is not under-rated one would need to Dyno a 911tt and GT-R on the same day, same dyno, then run 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, 0-150-0, and the N-ring using those same cars. Even then if the GT-R showed equivalent dyno numbers to the 911 and put up the better performance numbers it still wouldn't convince you that the "evidence for an under-rating" was you misinterpreting data.

Sure, that would do it for me, simple isn't it? Well everything except the Ring time...

If these two particular cars were tested both on the strip and at the track and the GT-R outperformed the 997TT I would be convinced and I would then say that a under-rating is very unlikely and if present no more than ~10 or so hp and ft lb. This would also improve my opinions of the GT-Rs chassis, suspension, drivetrain and traction control system (which by the way is already a very high opinion!).

By the way this is more of a case of lack of data rather than misinterpreting data. As more and more evidence become available my theories adjust. It is called a scientific approach, combined with a healthy dose of skepticism. The cars N'Ring time is still an outlier. Recall the good discussion and analysis (by many) on the regression thread here (http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92113). Specifically on the Ring lap time I still stick to my basic contentions there. Perhaps a small update is in order. IMO one or more of the following is the case for the 7:38 lap time:

1. They have really reinvented the sports car and bested everyone by a significant margin. Maybe it could be some combination of their (AWD system, dual clutch, traction control) systems.
2. That car was under rated in term of power
3. That car was under rated in terms of weight (claimed>actual)
4. That cars Bridgestone tires were a track/competition style tire that was still DOT legal. The tires are likely equivalent to a MPSC or better.
5. The driver was so darn elite that he was responsible for majority of the outlier nature of the lap time.

Do recall Sportauto with Horst at the wheel only achieved a 7:53 time.

[swamp2]

Again, this "insufficient piece of data" is no different than the one you posted that is also insufficient and yet you believe and 100% support the one you posted. Why is that?

When manufacturers specification, field tests (both performance and weight), dyno tests and simulations all agree fairly closely I call this an overwhleming concurence of the evidence. When you have this then you have a very stong case/theory that the manufacturers specs are all honest.

[gbb357]

When manufacturers specification, field tests (both performance and weight), dyno tests and simulations all agree fairly closely I call this an overwhleming concurence of the evidence. When you have this then you have a very stong case/theory that the manufacturers specs are all honest.

C'mon now, we know how simulations are not really exact science. Just because your simulations and the current available data conveniently supports your personal opinion of the GTR does'nt mean it is correct or valid. I'll say it again, the dyno test that you've posted does not have any performance figures from the same car that it was tested just like this one. So how do you know if that particular car had been modified and can actually put up better performance numbers?

[BMW335icDDS]

I think that I speak from some experience as I have owned three 997s (2) 997S's and a 997tt. I am also getting a GT-R in June, so I believe that I would consider myself a realist. The gearbox is part of the car, but without it, the GT-R's engine would not so easily beat the 997tt's engine. That is what this thread is essentially about.

And, your last statement is absolutely false. The GT-R will not beat the 997tt in every discipline. The most important every day performance benchmark on the street is roll on/in gear acceleration. The GT-R will simply get spanked there everytime by the 911. 3495 lbs. and more torque Porsche vs. 3873 +/- lbs. GT-R.

Sorry, I must disagree. I have a 997 Carrera S, am on wait list for a GT-R as well. I am not trying to be biased. Every review, including the infamous autocar one shows that the GT-R, under real world conditions like you say, will beat the 911 TT in a drag race. The GT-R has all the launch aids, while you try nailing the 911 TT from 0-60 in the 3.5 second group each time. I'm sure you cant, and probably would get around there 1 out of 10 times, meanwhile destroying your clutch. The GT-R can do it EVERY time easily.

[devo]

Sorry, I must disagree. I have a 997 Carrera S, am on wait list for a GT-R as well. I am not trying to be biased. Every review, including the infamous autocar one shows that the GT-R, under real world conditions like you say, will beat the 911 TT in a drag race. The GT-R has all the launch aids, while you try nailing the 911 TT from 0-60 in the 3.5 second group each time. I'm sure you cant, and probably would get around there 1 out of 10 times, meanwhile destroying your clutch. The GT-R can do it EVERY time easily.

I agree with much of what you are saying. But, are you just plain ignoring what I am saying regarding roll on/in-gear runs?

[spearfisher]

Nissan GT-R and Porsche 911 Turbo dyno results:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/1273/gtrdyno01in6.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1024/gtrdyno02ec9.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3292/gtrdyno03ps1.jpg

that shows it's not how much HP you have it's how well you put it to the ground

[swamp2]

C'mon now, we know how simulations are not really exact science. Just because your simulations and the current available data conveniently supports your personal opinion of the GTR does'nt mean it is correct or valid. I'll say it again, the dyno test that you've posted does not have any performance figures from the same car that it was tested just like this one. So how do you know if that particular car had been modified and can actually put up better performance numbers?

You'll never get it right, your own biases stiffle your objectivity. It is all backwards ^ and you do not understand my thought process one bit. There is a body of evidence and I already mentioned what is in that body, it is pretty diverse. From the evidence I have formed a theory, it is not an opinion, it is a theory based on the evidence. I suppose you could call it an opinion but that it is not so much a "personal" thing. I have definitely revised my theory and choice of words over time.

As far as the other dynos what is consistent is those results with some of the best observed performance figures for the car.

[chicagobimmerboy]

this car is not a Bugatti Veyron for christ sake. How much more power could it have possibly made stock.

[gbb357]

You'll never get it right, your own biases stiffle your objectivity. It is all backwards ^ and you do not understand my thought process one bit. There is a body of evidence and I already mentioned what is in that body, it is pretty diverse. From the evidence I have formed a theory, it is not an opinion, it is a theory based on the evidence. I suppose you could call it an opinion but that it is not so much a "personal" thing. I have definitely revised my theory and choice of words over time.

As far as the other dynos what is consistent is those results with some of the best observed performance figures for the car.

:bellyroll Now you're calling it a theory. As far i remember it was your final undisputed conclusion that the GTR was "massively under-rated". Don't try to flip-flop Swamp. Anyway, what i meant by your opinion, is that of you saying that the GTR is cheating and lying base on your insuficient evidence. Again, if you're saying that this car that Edmunds tested on the dyno is not sufficient enough evidence because they don't have any performance data, then why would the other dyno test that does'nt have any performance data either would be valid and sufficient evidence. Let me quote you again so you can understand.

A dyno result is interesting and generally valid when run with great care back to back with another vehicle. This does count as evidence toward the GT-R not being under-rated but you simply can not deny that a A-B dyno comparison is NOT evidence by itself for an under or over rating. What if this car pulled a 4.1 0-60 and 12.2 quarter mile (just for example)? That is the CRUCIAL question here. As I stated, and will state again, I'd LOVE to see real performance numbers for that exact car (both cars actually!). I wonder why these CRUCIAL pieces of information are missing. It sure is not some grand conspiricy but it is odd, they had the cars, why not make some acceleration runs?

Let me repeat it again. The original dyno test that you posted DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERFORMANCE DATA EITHER, IT WAS NOT TESTED AND THERE IS NO PERFORMANCE FIGURES THAT WAS CONDUCTED, NONE WHATSOEVER. So by your logic, it is not sufficient evidence either even though till this day you're still backing it up and standing by it as your final conclusion that the GTR is "massively under-rated". Stop contradicting yourself.

P.S. Please don't tell me that you base your conclusion on the performance data that is available and that it makes sense with the dyno test that you posted, so therefore it must be right. IT IS NOT THE SAME EXACT CAR.

[BMW335icDDS]

I agree with much of what you are saying. But, are you just plain ignoring what I am saying regarding roll on/in-gear runs?

No, I'm not trying to ignore what you say. I was just trying to make my own point as well. Glad we agree on cars :thumbsup:

[gbb357]

1st question:

Did the dyno test that you(swamp) posted have any performance data at all?

Answer: NO. None whatsoever.

2nd question:

Did you (swamp) said that the dyno test does not prove anything unless it has specific performance data on the same car that the dyno test was done on?

Answer: Yes.

Here are some of your own statements.
There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

Originally Posted by jaiman View Post
So in order to prove the car is not under-rated one would need to Dyno a 911tt and GT-R on the same day, same dyno, then run 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, 0-150-0, and the N-ring using those same cars. Even then if the GT-R showed equivalent dyno numbers to the 911 and put up the better performance numbers it still wouldn't convince you that the "evidence for an under-rating" was you misinterpreting data.

Sure, that would do it for me, simple isn't it? Well everything except the Ring time...


3rd question:

If that is the case, don't you think that original dyno test that you posted in the "GTR massively under-rating" thread does not prove anything at all since there where no performance data that was done on that same car that was tested on the dyno?

Answer: Should be yes, that the original dyno test did not prove anything. But i'm sure you (swamp) would say no. Because that favors you(swamp) and your statement and "opinions" about the GTR being "massively under-rated".

Conclusion:

Swamp would never be convinced that the GTR is not under-rated but rather "massively under-rated" no matter what evidence or proof is presented. And no dyno test on any GTR is valid unless every single GTR is dyno tested and have specific performance data with the exact same car will he approved that the results are valid. Even though the dyno test he originally posted did not have any performance data, in Swamps opinion they where valid because it was enough proof for him to call the GTR "cheating and a liar".

[gbb357]

World Domination
As we discovered in Inside Line's exclusive first test in Japan, the 2009 Nissan GT-R will rocket to 60 mph in just 3.3 seconds and blow through the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at more than 120 mph. This makes the GT-R R35 the quickest accelerating production vehicle we have ever tested. Quicker than any Ferrari. Quicker than any Corvette. Quicker than any Viper. And quicker than the Porsche 911 Turbo that was the yardstick against which Nissan measured all aspects of the GT-R's performance during its development.

If you look at the official Nissan power figures for the GT-R's twin-turbo 24-valve DOHC V6, such performance shouldn't be possible. Nissan rates this engine at 480 horsepower and 434 pound-feet of torque. (These are the figures announced for the GT-R in the Japanese domestic market as tested here, though Nissan promises that all GT-Rs planetwide will produce essentially identical power.) This all-aluminum beast is the most powerful engine ever installed in a production car from Japan, but the GT-R weighs more than 3,800 pounds, and such performance just doesn't add up with these numbers, whether you're using a supercomputer or an abacus.

In contrast, the Porsche 911 Turbo's turbocharged 3.6-liter horizontally opposed six is rated at 480 hp, while the car itself weighs less than 3,600 pounds. And yet the all-wheel-drive Porsche's gasp-inducing 3.4-second wallop to 60 mph is only a tenth-of-a-tick behind the all-wheel-drive Nissan's effort.

The dyno answers our questions. (All the data that follows is uncorrected for weather or altitude.)

Mustang Corral
Harman Motive is one of Southern California's top tuning houses, with a focus on BMW, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Subaru. And the tool that gives Harman its edge in the high-performance market is its Mustang MD-AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Harman's dyno cell is a cost-no-object showpiece, complete with an oversize, soundproof enclosure, twin ceiling-mounted air-extraction fans, and even windows for spectators.

Essentially, the Mustang dyno is a set of front rollers and a set of rear rollers that are mechanically linked to one another. The rollers are hooked up in turn to a single eddy-current absorber for the electricity that's produced. By measuring the amount of DC power applied to the coils and measuring the rpm of the spinning rotors, engine power is easily computed.

Even at a shop as hard-core as Harman, the GT-R attracted a crowd as it was strapped down onto the dyno. "God," said one, "that's one big, mean-looking car."

We topped off the GT-R's tank with a blend of 91 octane pump gasoline and enough 100 octane unleaded racing fuel to wind up at around 94 octane, close to what's commonly available in Japan.

The Rollers Tell the Truth
Though the GT-R has sizable exhaust tips, the four exhaust outlets themselves are surprisingly small in diameter, so the car isn't very loud. Nonetheless, the sound of the big tires against the rollers sets up a terrific banshee wail that seems to turn the air into jelly.

It's not an easy deal. All Japan-spec cars are equipped with a top-speed limiter at 180 km/h (112 mph) and we keep banging into it when we use 4th gear in the GT-R. Finally we select 3rd gear and get some clean pulls.

When the computer finishes crunching the numbers, the data tells us that the 2009 Nissan GT-R is putting out 406 hp at 6,400 rpm and 414 lb-ft of torque at 3,800 rpm. Once you factor in the parasitic losses of the all-wheel-drive system, these numbers are wholly in line with Nissan's claim for the engine's power at the crankshaft. During one pull, the horsepower perked up to 414 hp, but it wasn't repeatable and torque production through the midrange suffered.

Earlier, Harman tested a 997-generation Porsche 911 Turbo on the same dyno, and we discovered some interesting things when we overlaid its power curve with that of the GT-R. The Porsche's variable-geometry turbos give its six-cylinder engine a significant advantage in torque output over the GT-R below 3,600 rpm. But once these engines reach the range between 3,600 and 5,700 rpm (where the real work of acceleration must be done), the GT-R's V6 has the 911's flat-6 covered.

One World, One Godzilla
Nissan has long insisted that the 2009 Nissan GT-R will be available only in a single specification across the entire planet. There might be a few software tweaks to adjust for fuel quality in various markets, but for the most part the American-market GT-R that's coming here soon will differ from JSpecConnect.com's GT-R only slightly.

What the dyno charts suggest is that the GT-R's performance advantage isn't solely in the power generated by its twin-turbo V6. Much of the GT-R's edge lies in technology like its launch control system, its dual-clutch automated manual transmission and the awe-inspiring way the all-wheel-drive system ensures that so much of the power makes its way to the road.

The 2009 Nissan GT-R isn't simply a car with a lot of power; it's a car that makes the most out of the power that it has.

At any one time, there can only be one king at the top of the hill. And right now, the Nissan GT-R is enjoying that panoramic view.

Here's the rest of the article and video: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=125172?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1 .*#34

[swamp2]

gbb: I am really done with you. You are so impossible to have a discussion with let alone an argument. You isolate everything and see nothing as a whole or in context. You quote out of context, misinterpret statements, get too emotional, continually miss the main points, don't understand definitions, pretty much do not read, etc., etc., etc.

You win, you are 100% right, I am 100% wrong there never was a shred of evidence that the GT-R was under-rated and never will be. It is a mircale vehicle and Pwns every car ever made. Revel in your glorious and meticulous defeat of swamp2 through your beautifully crafted and brilliant logic and arguments. I bow at your feet to worship your intellect.

Adios, I am so done wasting my time with you.

[gbb357]

^^But did you read the article from Edmunds? And calm down Swamp, i'm just having fun with you.

[footie]

gbb357,

As always your remarks are correct and in my opinion based in facts. The reason why the GTR is on most tests quicker than the equally powered 997tt is down to three other factors,

1: The gearbox which regardless of what Nissan says is changing gears very bit as quick as either DSG or BMW's DCT system will.

2: The efficiency of it's awd system at shifting the power between all of the wheels.

3: It much better balanced chassis in terms of weight.

With the Porsche, unlike when the car is in rwd form and comparing it against other rwd car where it's extra weight over the only driving wheels gives it the advantage of traction, this time round the Porsche is at the disadvantage, unlike the Nissan which has a more balance chassis and when the power is being shifted there is sufficient weight over the wheels to benefit but in the Porsche it doesn't have enough weight over the front wheels to get any where near the same benefit that the GTR has.

This means that in my opinion the GTR holds advantage over the 997tt in aceleration up to about 100mph at which point I believe the Porsche will gain the upper hand. And in the recent CAR rpadtest which included the M3 and R8 it showed that while the GTR was still the quickest to 100mph by 0.1s it was the Porsche which recorded the higher trap speed on the long straight of the track yet wasn't as quick in the corner before it.

[gbb357]

^^ Thanks Footie. It is quite amazing how these two cars are so similar and yet so different in their strenghts.

[gbb357]

gbb: I am really done with you. You are so impossible to have a discussion with let alone an argument. You isolate everything and see nothing as a whole or in context. You quote out of context, misinterpret statements, get too emotional, continually miss the main points, don't understand definitions, pretty much do not read, etc., etc., etc.

You win, you are 100% right, I am 100% wrong there never was a shred of evidence that the GT-R was under-rated and never will be. It is a mircale vehicle and Pwns every car ever made. Revel in your glorious and meticulous defeat of swamp2 through your beautifully crafted and brilliant logic and arguments. I bow at your feet to worship your intellect.

Adios, I am so done wasting my time with you.

Typical Swamp avoiding the questions and retorting to the usual Swamp defensive move of claiming "misinterpretations", "quoting out of context" , and the famous "you're missing the point" response. Everything that i have quoted you on are your own post and none where changed or misinterpreted. Check post #25 when you responded to Jaiman's post, it's the same one i quoted you on. If you're not man enough (you sir is a coward) to admit that you are wrong, that is on you Swamp. I honestly could care less if you admit that or not or even if you're wrong or not. As long as you stop posting B.S. you have nothing to worry about me getting in your face. I always give credit whenever credit is due, and whenever i am wrong, and believe me that happens often enough, i will man up to it. Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, because it will only help me learn more. And on that note, i have learned from you several times because you do have a respectable knowledge about cars and i for one respect that. Till next time Swamp.:thumbsup:

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Typical Swamp avoiding the questions and retorting to the usual Swamp defensive move of claiming "misinterpretations", "quoting out of context" , and the famous "you're missing the point" response...

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait. :)

Bruce

[gbb357]

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait. :)

Bruce

Oh yeah, that should be a lot of fun. If that happens i might have to go on vacation away from here.:D Just kidding, i'll be ready and i'll just have to deal with all his glory. Later Bruce.

Best Regards,
Rommel

[swamp2]

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait. :)

Bruce

What is really funny Bruce is how you are ASSUMING the US (or NA) car WILL be slower than it is in the rest of the world. I don't care one way or the other if it is, although I will be interested in the reason for any differences should they happen. You do realize that Nissan (and most Nissan fans and fanboys) have been "guaranteeing" that the car is a "world spec" car, identical everywhere.

Nice job of assumptions and "pre-excuses" for under performance before the car even gets here. I will emphasize your choice of words here as well, you said "when" not "if". That's particularly funny to me.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

What is really funny Bruce is how you are ASSUMING the US (or NA) car WILL be slower than it is in the rest of the world. I don't care one way or the other if it is, although I will be interested in the reason for any differences should they happen. You do realize that Nissan (and most Nissan fans and fanboys) have been "guaranteeing" that the car is a "world spec" car, identical everywhere.

Nice job of assumptions and "pre-excuses" for under performance before the car even gets here. I will emphasize your choice of words here as well, you said "when" not "if". That's particularly funny to me.

Swamp, I don't get this.

As you know, I try to be careful about words, so I thought I made it perfectly clear that I am assuming (no, sorry, ASSUMING) that the U.S. spec car will have a watered-down launch control algorithm.

Then, you accuse me of making that perfectly clear assumption - and that's "really funny".

What?

Back on your meds, guy.

I'll personally be delighted if the U.S. spec car has the full magilla, but will be scratching my head about how they're going to get out from under a boatload of warranty claims, given our penchant for hot-damn launches - at the drag strip or on the way to the grocery store. BMW watered down the launch software for the U.S. for good reason, and I ASSUME Nissan ain't dumb.

Bruce

[footie]

Bruce,

Knowing just how strong Nissan made their other versions of the GTR I would have thought that if any company would keep things intact it would be Nissan. Remember when they developed the last R34 GTR for Europe they included radiators for just about every moving component just because we had a higher than 112mph top speed.

Nissan will want the GTR to be every bit a good in the US as it is every where else.

Would you not concur. :confused2

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Bruce,

Knowing just how strong Nissan made their other versions of the GTR I would have thought that if any company would keep things intact it would be Nissan. Remember when they developed the last R34 GTR for Europe they included radiators for just about every moving component just because we had a higher than 112mph top speed.

Nissan will want the GTR to be every bit a good in the US as it is every where else.

Would you not concur. :confused2

As I said, I'd be delighted and bewildered if they allow the same launch control in the U.S. as they currently do in the Japan cars (and presumably the Euro-spec cars).

BMW would want the same specs as well, but felt they couldn't afford it, apparently.

Again, I'd be delighted and bewildered.

Bruce

[southlight]

That's the answer, both cars are underrated: :D
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=785


Best regards, south

[DC52E55]

GTR is one of the worst cars ever made in the history. I just want to throw up everytime I hear someone says GTR. YUCK!

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

[///Mantis]

GTR is one of the worst cars ever made in the history. I just want to throw up everytime I hear someone says GTR. YUCK!

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031

:popcorn:

okay ur trying to be sarcastic :D i get it now

[southlight]

:popcorn:

okay ur trying to be sarcastic :D i get it now
L did a good job I suppose. :D


Best regards, south

[footie]

As I said, I'd be delighted and bewildered if they allow the same launch control in the U.S. as they currently do in the Japan cars (and presumably the Euro-spec cars).

BMW would want the same specs as well, but felt they couldn't afford it, apparently.

Again, I'd be delighted and bewildered.

Bruce

Bruce,

You can't look at what BMW decided to do and expect Nissan to cope, like I said Nissan don't cut corners unlike BMW. If they feel that the car needs to be beefed up to deal with the launch control then they will, that is the difference.

I would be gobsmacked if it wasn't the same.

[///Mantis]

L did a good job I suppose. :D


Best regards, south

sorry bro. im just a very sensitive person, i dont take sarcasm too well.

[southlight]

sorry bro. im just a very sensitive person, i dont take sarcasm too well.
I'll keep that in mind. ;) Anyway there's a lot of it all over m3post...hard time for you, I guess?


Best regards, south

[///Mantis]

I'll keep that in mind. ;) Anyway there's a lot of it all over m3post...hard time for you, I guess?


Best regards, south

this is me when im on M3post
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/2001819576783355739_rs.jpg

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Bruce,

You can't look at what BMW decided to do and expect Nissan to cope, like I said Nissan don't cut corners unlike BMW. If they feel that the car needs to be beefed up to deal with the launch control then they will, that is the difference.

I would be gobsmacked if it wasn't the same.

Hope you're right - and love the remark. :)

Bruce

[swamp2]

Swamp, I don't get this.

As you know, I try to be careful about words, so I thought I made it perfectly clear that I am assuming (no, sorry, ASSUMING) that the U.S. spec car will have a watered-down launch control algorithm.

Then, you accuse me of making that perfectly clear assumption - and that's "really funny".

What?

Back on your meds, guy.

I'll personally be delighted if the U.S. spec car has the full magilla, but will be scratching my head about how they're going to get out from under a boatload of warranty claims, given our penchant for hot-damn launches - at the drag strip or on the way to the grocery store. BMW watered down the launch software for the U.S. for good reason, and I ASSUME Nissan ain't dumb.

Bruce

Thanks for the insults Bruce, real mature, NOT. Comments littered with such crap don't usually deserve a reply nor my time but I will humor you.

The funny thing here is that there are those who are huge GT-R fans (and fanboys) and those who are not. As much as I appreciate and respect the car I still really don't fall into the "huge fan" camp. So the fans praise and others find fault. Despite my respect for the car I am very skeptical. I don't as much find fault but like to look at all of the evidence, some of which I believe is inconsistent. So when the fans like yourself start making excuses for the cars poor performance in the US, I find it really comical. Then to use it to poke fun at me for my skepticsim. Pure irony Bruce, pure irony.

And by the way Mr. Careful With Words what part of your post on this topic made and hint of an assumption about a watered down LC? If you re read your own post it was stated totally matter of fact that it will be watered down and I will over react to that. Wrong on both counts, not careful nor clear and wrong about what my reaction would be.

Just to be clear I do agree that a limp LC will be very likely for the GT-R for the US, probably just like the M3 with M-DCT. Luckily that will be fairly easy to fix with software.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Thanks for the insults Bruce, real mature, NOT. Comments littered with such crap don't usually deserve a reply nor my time but I will humor you.

Uhh, thank you?

The funny thing here is that there are those who are huge GT-R fans (and fanboys) and those who are not. As much as I appreciate and respect the car I still really don't fall into the "huge fan" camp. So the fans praise and others find fault. Despite my respect for the car I am very skeptical. I don't as much find fault but like to look at all of the evidence, some of which I believe is inconsistent. So when the fans like yourself start making excuses for the cars poor performance in the US, I find it really comical. Then to use it to poke fun at me for my skepticsim. Pure irony Bruce, pure irony.

You're saying the GT-R will have poor performance in the U.S.?

Snicker.

And by the way Mr. Careful With Words what part of your post on this topic made and hint of an assumption about a watered down LC? If you re read your own post it was stated totally matter of fact that it will be watered down and I will over react to that. Wrong on both counts, not careful nor clear and wrong about what my reaction would be.

I will be amazed if the GT-R doesn't have a hobbled LC mode in the U.S., and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about your reaction.

Just to be clear I do agree that a limp LC will be very likely for the GT-R for the US, probably just like the M3 with M-DCT. Luckily that will be fairly easy to fix with software.

So you agree, but didn't like the wording? Snicker.

By the way, there's simply no possibility that I'll ever be interested in possessing a GT-R. If somebody gave me one, I'd sell it. For various reasons, it's just not my kind of car. I simply love the fact that it occupies new ground in the performance wars, and that's always good.

Sadly, I'm feeling almost the same about the new M3. Having experienced the E36 and E46 versions over the long haul, I'll give the new one a quick try, I guess, but I ain't really hopeful. This M trend of bigger and heavier just doesn't do it for me.

I'm getting interested in the 1 series, however. Still way too heavy, but maybe the shorter wheelbase will make it seem more tossable.

Bruce

[///Mantis]

i cant instigate, huh? not needed anyway.

:popcorn:

[OzCarfreak]

GTRs running 11.?? stock stop knocking it it walks m3/m5/m6 all day long lets just move on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-9v8Zl1FMo

[swamp2]

You're saying the GT-R will have poor performance in the U.S.?


No, I should clarify that. If it gets a crippled LC or any other crippling it's performance will obvisouly suffer, poor would be an over statement.


and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about your reaction.


Again a direct contradiction. If you don't care why the post claiming I will be the first in line to incorrectly over react? You certainy gave a damn enough to start a silly little post on the topic.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

...Again a direct contradiction. If you don't care why the post claiming I will be the first in line to incorrectly over react? You certainy gave a damn enough to start a silly little post on the topic.

Uh-h, it was an observation?

It also was a reminder about those days of yesteryear when your sillyness quotient ran sky high in that "massively over rated" string. Makes me grin every time I think about it. :)

Bruce

[swamp2]

Uh-h, it was an observation?

It also was a reminder about those days of yesteryear when your sillyness quotient ran sky high in that "massively over rated" string. Makes me grin every time I think about it. :)

Bruce

I'm am glad your skepticism quotient is so much lower then mine. The cars laptime and the (likely in error) dyno at the time formed a reasonable basis for the claim. Is it equally as funny that I have adjusted my "theory" as we obtain more and more information? Does that provide you with as many jollies ... no, I'm sure not, such occurences are never as interesting but reflect the essense of my approach to things in general.

Please recall one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite fellows.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

-Carl Sagan

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

I'm am glad your skepticism quotient is so much lower then mine. The cars laptime and the (likely in error) dyno at the time formed a reasonable basis for the claim. Is it equally as funny that I have adjusted my "theory" as we obtain more and more information? Does that provide you with as many jollies ... no, I'm sure not, such occurences are never as interesting but reflect the essense of my approach to things in general.

It was the overall kicking and screaming on your part as you were drawn to the obvious that makes me grin when I remember it.

I say obvious because for me the issue was more or less closed when a couple of testers reported that the Porsche could pull the Nissan from a roll, and that the two were closely matched in top speed. That fact has since been reported over and over, the latest example of which is in a multi-car comparison test in the current issue of "Car". The Nissan gets around the track quicker, but the Porsche has the highest speed (by around four percent or so) on the straight. Of course, you and I know just what a four percent speed advantage means in terms of power to weight.

Please recall one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite fellows.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

-Carl Sagan


You'll get no fight from me regarding Sagan. I thought we all lost when he died. Nobody before or since has been able to capture the public the way he did with his fascinating observations on interesting things in the universe. I've dabbled with astronomy since I was a kid, and from time to time, I still drag my long-suffering bride outside on a cold night to view some damn cloud or other a few million light years away. :)

But hey, I digress. Let me turn that quote around on you. You and lucid did some very nice work on corellation between power to weight and 'Ring times, but you needed (and still need) a bunch more data for you to declare with any conviction at all that the GT-R is a ringer. The Porsche gets around a couple of seconds slower, but of course we all know the Turbo is a real handful at the limit, and as Danny Ongais once said, "You need three feet to drive this car fast."

There simply aren't enough cars around like the Nissan and Porsche for you to draw any reasonable conclusions from 'Ring times and power to weight.

Bruce

[OzCarfreak]

Stop kidding yourself dude GTr owns m3 by a country mile, i looked over one today too, its stunning! m3 is cooked before it even got started im afraid to say. GTR for me

[bobbo]

Stop kidding yourself dude GTr owns m3 by a country mile, i looked over one today too, its stunning! m3 is cooked before it even got started im afraid to say. GTR for me

Aren't you a dreamcrusher!

[footie]

But hey, I digress. Let me turn that quote around on you. You and lucid did some very nice work on corellation between power to weight and 'Ring times, but you needed (and still need) a bunch more data for you to declare with any conviction at all that the GT-R is a ringer. The Porsche gets around a couple of seconds slower, but of course we all know the Turbo is a real handful at the limit, and as Danny Ongais once said, "You need three feet to drive this car fast."

There simply aren't enough cars around like the Nissan and Porsche for you to draw any reasonable conclusions from 'Ring times and power to weight.

Bruce


You are right on the money mate.:thumbsup:

There is a lot more the ring than simple power to weight can define, without a decent top speed on those long straights the time wouldn't be that amazing (just look at the R8 for an example), I think things like acceleration up to say 175mph is a requirement and lateral G grip should also be included along with braking distances. The only factor which is harder to define is the ease of driving which surely plays it's part in any final result.

[swamp2]

It was the overall kicking and screaming on your part as you were drawn to the obvious that makes me grin when I remember it.

I say obvious because for me the issue was more or less closed when a couple of testers reported that the Porsche could pull the Nissan from a roll, and that the two were closely matched in top speed. That fact has since been reported over and over, the latest example of which is in a multi-car comparison test in the current issue of "Car". The Nissan gets around the track quicker, but the Porsche has the highest speed (by around four percent or so) on the straight. Of course, you and I know just what a four percent speed advantage means in terms of power to weight.



You'll get no fight from me regarding Sagan. I thought we all lost when he died. Nobody before or since has been able to capture the public the way he did with his fascinating observations on interesting things in the universe. I've dabbled with astronomy since I was a kid, and from time to time, I still drag my long-suffering bride outside on a cold night to view some damn cloud or other a few million light years away. :)

But hey, I digress. Let me turn that quote around on you. You and lucid did some very nice work on corellation between power to weight and 'Ring times, but you needed (and still need) a bunch more data for you to declare with any conviction at all that the GT-R is a ringer. The Porsche gets around a couple of seconds slower, but of course we all know the Turbo is a real handful at the limit, and as Danny Ongais once said, "You need three feet to drive this car fast."

There simply aren't enough cars around like the Nissan and Porsche for you to draw any reasonable conclusions from 'Ring times and power to weight.

Bruce

Good deal another agreement. :thumsup:

Our regression work did not prove that the GT-R is or is not anything. It simply provided another piece of evidence for one of many things happening with the car, my list (posted about 4 times by now) of four or five items which could explain the time are still ones I stand by to this date. Under-rating is just one of those. Another, which I believe to be mostly verified is the those 20" o-rings on the car are as good as or better than MPSC tires.

Furthermore there is enough data used in the regression to draw a ton of conclusions from. The data covers such a wide range of variables, many of which are in essence random (temp, driver, tires, track condition) further it covers a wide range of very high performance cars and an enormous range of the primary variable, power to weight. You do not need 100 variants of a modern, AWD, turbo charged, elite performing car to make conclusions about those particular instances of a car like that in the data set. It seems you still don't really get it.

[southlight]

Thanks for the :bump: , bobbo. :rolleyes:

[sayemthree]

just read in Rand T how the GTR spanks the Turbo and the Z06. by like 5 seconds around BW. the AWD system on this car must be pure magic because there is really nothing else that stands out in the specs. HP and TQ are same or less. wieght is much more. tires just street Dunlops. its not the fastest in a straight line was slowest to 120 mph), its noseheavy (not 50-50)..... but it sure gets around the track fast.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

...You do not need 100 variants of a modern, AWD, turbo charged, elite performing car to make conclusions about those particular instances of a car like that in the data set.

You need more than two.

It seems you still don't really get it.

Backatcha. Taking very good general data and applying it to any single vehicle (or in this case two vehicles) is dangerous, at best. Any single variable can skew the results.

Bruce

[OzCarfreak]

2 - 1 to bruce

[swamp2]

You need more than two.



Backatcha. Taking very good general data and applying it to any single vehicle (or in this case two vehicles) is dangerous, at best. Any single variable can skew the results.

Bruce

No Bruce, you do not get it. Let me be painfully clear.

Without a statistical approach and to have a very high degree of certainty about what contirbutes to a cars lap times you would need many very similar vehicles. Since not that many exist close enough in spec to the GT-R you MUST and CAN ONLY use statistics. The statistics DO NOT PROVE anyhting. They only point you in the right direction and tell you there is a high probability of something strongly countering the established regression trend.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

No Bruce, you do not get it. Let me be painfully clear.

Without a statistical approach and to have a very high degree of certainty about what contirbutes to a cars lap times you would need many very similar vehicles. Since not that many exist close enough in spec to the GT-R you MUST and CAN ONLY use statistics. The statistics DO NOT PROVE anyhting. They only point you in the right direction and tell you there is a high probability of something strongly countering the established regression trend.

OK, we'll each soldier on with the understanding that the other guy doesn't get it. I'm comfy with that.

Bruce

[swamp2]

OK, we'll each soldier on with the understanding that the other guy doesn't get it. I'm comfy with that.

Bruce

Yeah, I guess you are just bored, that's cool. However, you could spend your time replying telling us all specifically what you disagree with in my last post.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Yeah, I guess you are just bored, that's cool. However, you could spend your time replying telling us all specifically what you disagree with in my last post.

Can't see a thing in that post that I would disagree with. As I said, I'm comfy with each of us being convinced that the other guy doesn't get it. We've already been through this in some detail, remember back a ways? Sheesh.

Bruce

[chitosing]

swamp is correct, guys. the GT-R is under rated. it's actually a bugatti veyron disguised (and priced) as a nissan.

[swamp2]

swamp is correct, guys. the GT-R is under rated. it's actually a bugatti veyron disguised (and priced) as a nissan.

Do recall that I have posted a succinct list of the factors that have or may have contributed to the cars N'Ring time in particular. I have posted this list about 3 times. I have also agreed that the evidence behind my prior view of a massive under-rating is pretty much bogus, hence my discarding of that point of view.

[buschy]

Why didnt Nissan jsut put this into the Z? the Z looks ten times as good as the Gtr

[sayemthree]

Why didnt Nissan jsut put this into the Z? the Z looks ten times as good as the Gtr

the Z is not AWD. apprently the AWD is the magic that makes the GTR faster then the compitition.

[swamp2]

the Z is not AWD. apprently the AWD is the magic that makes the GTR faster then the compitition.

As far as the N'Ring goes AWD is one of many factors others, many of which are almost for sure more significant than AWD are:

-Tires likely as sticky as MPSC
-Ace driver
-Nissans specific AWD ATTESA-ETS system
-Dual clutch transmission

[sayemthree]

As far as the N'Ring goes AWD is one of many factors others, many of which are almost for sure more significant than AWD are:

-Tires likely as sticky as MPSC
-Ace driver
-Nissans specific AWD ATTESA-ETS system
-Dual clutch transmission

well the GTR whooped the 911 turbo and Z06 at Buttonwill my 5 sec. same drive. the GTR appears to have no advantage in any spec, wieght, distribution, tires, HP etc. yet it still whooped them.

[luckistryke]

i trackday 2 wheelers. thats crazy, 5 sec. is a world away.....good lord thats fast

[footie]

As far as the N'Ring goes AWD is one of many factors others, many of which are almost for sure more significant than AWD are:

-Tires likely as sticky as MPSC
-Ace driver
-Nissans specific AWD ATTESA-ETS system
-Dual clutch transmission

All of the times which are posted by manufacturers are with Ace drivers, the stickiest tyres. Nissan are only copying what everyone else does.

The thing that is making the GTR so special is the confidence it gives the driver and that is down to the way the car behaves at the limit, I have little doubt that it's awd system is playing a very big role in this but also it's sheer grunt and incredible braking power.

Look at the other cars which perform outside of the box so to speak, the R8 has out performed it's power specs on every track apart from the ring and this has to do with it's lack of grunt more than anything else, next is the CSL which is another car which performs beyond it's output. The only difference is that the CSL does perform brilliantly on the ring which means it's cornering ability it even higher than the R8 and possibly the GTR as well, but I reckon the real difference that the CSL has over all others is it's ability to deal with the bumpiness of the track, again all of this builds confidence to push that bit harder.

I myself don't believe the DCT will make that much of a difference on the ring, maybe 3 seconds but if it's more then all you trackday toyboys are getting a hack of an advantage over your manual brothers.

[footie]

If anyone is interested, the GTR opened it books and in the first two days they took deposits for 700 units, amazing or what.

[swamp2]

All of the times which are posted by manufacturers are with Ace drivers, the stickiest tyres. Nissan are only copying what everyone else does.

The thing that is making the GTR so special is the confidence it gives the driver and that is down to the way the car behaves at the limit, I have little doubt that it's awd system is playing a very big role in this but also it's sheer grunt and incredible braking power.

Look at the other cars which perform outside of the box so to speak, the R8 has out performed it's power specs on every track apart from the ring and this has to do with it's lack of grunt more than anything else, next is the CSL which is another car which performs beyond it's output. The only difference is that the CSL does perform brilliantly on the ring which means it's cornering ability it even higher than the R8 and possibly the GTR as well, but I reckon the real difference that the CSL has over all others is it's ability to deal with the bumpiness of the track, again all of this builds confidence to push that bit harder.

I myself don't believe the DCT will make that much of a difference on the ring, maybe 3 seconds but if it's more then all you trackday toyboys are getting a hack of an advantage over your manual brothers.

I agree with most of this EXCEPT the point about drivers and times. You are wrong about this. Sportauto with Horst at the wheel has become a sort of de facto N'Ring time that is accepted by the manufacturers themselves. For better or worse it is a standard. Recall his time was 7:50 in the GT-R. Again it is only fair to note that the track had some wet spots during this run.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

I agree with most of this EXCEPT the point about drivers and times. You are wrong about this. Sportauto with Horst at the wheel has become a sort of de facto N'Ring time that is accepted by the manufacturers themselves. For better or worse it is a standard. Recall his time was 7:50 in the GT-R. Again it is only fair to note that the track had some wet spots during this run.

Well, I guess you're both right. SportAuto has in fact established something of a standard - as you say, for better or worse. I would say for better and worse, because I think it's both, but that's just wordsmithing.

However, the fact is there are a bunch of hired guns out there running Vettes, Porsches, the GT-R, etc., and none of those manufacturers seem inclined to just hand it over to Horst and hope for the best.

So there's a SportAuto standard and a balls-to-the-wall, hired gun "standard", both of which have merit. I personally would love for BMW to hand the keys to Auberlen or Said, for instance, and let either (or both) of those guys hammer away at the 'Ring with standard PS2s and pads, to see what they get to. Then we could compare those times with, say, the 7:59s done by the 400 HP Vette and 355 HP 911S, both accomplished with fast guys.

Not gonna happen, I guess, but it would add to our general knowledge.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Well, I guess you're both right. SportAuto has in fact established something of a standard - as you say, for better or worse. I would say for better and worse, because I think it's both, but that's just wordsmithing.

However, the fact is there are a bunch of hired guns out there running Vettes, Porsches, the GT-R, etc., and none of those manufacturers seem inclined to just hand it over to Horst and hope for the best.

So there's a SportAuto standard and a balls-to-the-wall, hired gun "standard", both of which have merit. I personally would love for BMW to hand the keys to Auberlen or Said, for instance, and let either (or both) of those guys hammer away at the 'Ring with standard PS2s and pads, to see what they get to. Then we could compare those times with, say, the 7:59s done by the 400 HP Vette and 355 HP 911S, both accomplished with fast guys.

Not gonna happen, I guess, but it would add to our general knowledge.

Bruce

Yup, +1 on that. The more data the better. I'd like to see many combinations. Including the best "OEM" M3 car set up with BMW OEM "track" pads, MPSC+, M-DCT AND a phenomenal driver!

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by swamp2
As far as the N'Ring goes AWD is one of many factors others, many of which are almost for sure more significant than AWD are:

-Tires likely as sticky as MPSC
-Ace driver
-Nissans specific AWD ATTESA-ETS system
-Dual clutch transmission

any more on the GTR tires. listed as Dunlop sport SP 600 - couldnt find anything on these tires even on google?

[footie]

I agree with most of this EXCEPT the point about drivers and times. You are wrong about this. Sportauto with Horst at the wheel has become a sort of de facto N'Ring time that is accepted by the manufacturers themselves. For better or worse it is a standard. Recall his time was 7:50 in the GT-R. Again it is only fair to note that the track had some wet spots during this run.

Call me big headed if you like but I don't call Horst an amazing driver, sure he's good and I would say better than myself but compared to most of the test drivers working for their respective brands Horst is average at best.

I remember reading that one of the Audi racing drivers got the RS4 around the ring in 7:56~8 which at worst case means 11 seconds. Imagine how big of a gap that would be in distance.

Maybe his skills are better honed to rwd chassis which would explain why has BMW times are usually quite decent.

[footie]

any more on the GTR tires. listed as Dunlop sport SP 600 - couldnt find anything on these tires even on google?

I personally wouldn't rate Dunlops, maybe these are better than the ones I has tired in the past. I would have thought they would be using something like Bridgestone or yokohama.

[sayemthree]

I personally wouldn't rate Dunlops, maybe these are better than the ones I has tired in the past. I would have thought they would be using something like Bridgestone or yokohama.

agree for the most part. but these could be some special secret super-sticky?

[swamp2]

any more on the GTR tires. listed as Dunlop sport SP 600 - couldnt find anything on these tires even on google?

No. They are 20" Bridgestone Potenza RE070R RFT that have been specifically tuned for the GT-R.

[swamp2]

Call me big headed if you like but I don't call Horst an amazing driver, sure he's good and I would say better than myself but compared to most of the test drivers working for their respective brands Horst is average at best.

I never said he was an amazing driver. I never even called him good, although he is clearly good. All I said was that he represents an important and long standing standard.

[jaiman]

No. They are 20" Bridgestone Potenza RE070R RFT that have been specifically tuned for the GT-R.

There are actually 2 tires available (3 if you count the snow tires), the Dunlops come on the base model, the premium gets the Bridgestones.

[footie]

I never said he was an amazing driver. I never even called him good, although he is clearly good. All I said was that he represents an important and long standing standard.

So where will you look to when old Horst is gone, after all he isn't getting any younger you know. ;)

[Sedan_Clan]

Interesting thread fellas. I can't wait to come across one of these on the street.

[sayemthree]

the GTR tested in RandT that beat the Turbo around BW had the Dunlops.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Call me big headed if you like but I don't call Horst an amazing driver, sure he's good and I would say better than myself but compared to most of the test drivers working for their respective brands Horst is average at best.

I remember reading that one of the Audi racing drivers got the RS4 around the ring in 7:56~8 which at worst case means 11 seconds. Imagine how big of a gap that would be in distance.

Maybe his skills are better honed to rwd chassis which would explain why has BMW times are usually quite decent.

Although the times he puts up are always off, I doubt that casts his skills in any kind of light. You have to consider his job, which as far as I know is to run these cars around the 'Ring in journeyman fashion, roughly equivalent to a skilled but non-professional driver. In other words, no heroism allowed. The fact that he probably knows the course as well as anyone helps him get reasonable times in spite of nine-tenths driving.

You know those pictures you see about how guys at the 'Ring are getting Cessna licenses, four wheels in the air and all crossed up with nowhere obvious to go? Well, chances are that unless he's having a very off day, you'll never get one of those shots with our steady guy Horst behind the wheel.

Bruce

Edit: PS - Those Vette pictures absolutely scared me.

[sayemthree]

whether he is the best driver or not is not as important as how consitant he is, if we are comparing cars he has tested.

[footie]

Does anyone know what the GTR is doing the 0-100mph time in?

I see the big RS6 Avant has posted it's second official sub 9 second time for the same discipline.

Here's what Gustav posted on M5Board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMW Alpina B5S Touring vs Audi RS6 Avant:

B5S RS6

€97 900 €106 900

Round 1 "Karroserie" : Larger luggage capacity and space for passengers gives victory to the Audu RS6

Round 2: "Fahrkomfort": The nicer "dialled in" have more comfort.The Alpina B5 is also equipped wtih comfort seats whic hare alot more comfortable than the sport seats of the RS6.

Round 3: Motor / Getriebe: Win for the Alpina B5S. More cultivated and less loud than the bi-turbo V10 of the RS6. Also with a top speed of 313 km/h it's alot mroe than the Ingolstädter. For €1600 a 280 km/h option is available.

Round 4: Fahrdynamilk: With firstclass brakes the Audi RS6 sets a benchmark.

Round 5: Umwelt / Kosten: The smaller costs has the Alpina B5S: cheaper to buy as new, better exhaust values and lower insurance. €60 000 in loss the first four years.

SUMMARY: When sumamrized the points, the Alpina B5S Touring is clearly in front. It is a very solid car but neverthelss a very primitive; like a ironfist in a velvetglove. The Audi RS6 is the more active driving car and when you want to, more sportier. But when comfort and top speed it cannot keep pace with the Alpina.

They are both full family and everyday cars despite driving capabilities of Lamborghini-level.

B5S Touring RS6 Avant

0-60 km/h 2,3 s 2,0 s
0-100 km/h 4,4 s 4,2 s
0-140 km/h 7,2 s 7,2 s
0-160 km/h 9,2 s 8,8 s
0-180 km/h 11,3 s 10,1 s
0-200 km/h 13,9 s 13,5 s

Top speed: 313 km/h 250 / 280 km/h
Handling: 1,51:7 min 1,48,5 min
Slalom pylondistance 18 m 61,1 km/h 63,6 km/h
Braking cold: 36,7 36,5
Braking warm: 34,2 33 ,9

Test consump: 1,62 l/ 10 km 1, 73 / 10 km

CO2: 296 g/ km 333 g/km

TOTAL POINTS: 3143 3095 of 5000