View Single Post
      12-15-2007, 01:31 AM   #41

Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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 over-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 potenial 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?
The only reason i'm bringing up the ISF thread because it's a similar situation where you easily jump into conclusions about a car being sooo grossly under-rated, i believe you guessed it at 470hp. Anyway, i know you are sooo happy about this news, so have your fun and celebration, keep thinking how over-hyped the GTR is like it really matters. I don't neccessarily need evidence, but a more reliable and popular source would'nt hurt either and not just one but several.