View Single Post
      12-14-2007, 10:27 PM   #34
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Let's not get carried away here. This is from one source only so far, nobody even knows what the article says and how credible and reliable it is. What if it's an early prototype of a chip being tested on the GTR. It wasn't that long ago when you Swamp doubted the ISF and right away called it being over-rated even after i posted a dyno test done by Automobilemag confirming the hp ratings to be correct. And to keep calling it over hyped is just ridiculous, stop hatin. The whole hyped about the GTR is it's performance not the hp figures. The performance figures where out way before the hp figures came out. So far ony one mag has confirmed the 0-60, lets wait and see if the peformance live up to what they're publishing.
You directly follow this post that cautions us all not to get carried away with a post providing more of the very details that establish the case that the car is clearly under-rated. Dislexia much?

Let's not keep going back to the IS-F. The simulations with the incorrect final drive pointed to a very likely under-rating of the IS-F. The revised simulation with the correct FD as well as the actual performance numbers still points to a potential under-rating. Bruce A's simulations also pointed to a potential under-rating of the IS-F. If it is under-rated it is slight, 5-20 hp. Get over it.

Let me be perfectly clear on this one. The GT-R is under-rated, period. There is simply no way it can achieve the numbers it has at its stated power and weight figures. The regression analysis shows it, 1/4 simulation times show it and the dyno now shows it as well. Even accounting for jworms good point about the specific dyno type there is still no way the resulting dyno numbers are consistent with a stated 480 crank hp. How much evidence do you need exaclty?

Last edited by swamp2; 12-15-2007 at 03:38 AM.