View Single Post
      12-20-2007, 09:14 PM   #164
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357
So it's not under-rated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
I don't think anyone ever said it was...

just that it's not over-rated, ie, 480/430 at the WHEELS...that's unrealistic...
Uhhh, have you checked the title of this thread. To sum it up for you, basically Swamp concludes that if the dyno says 482hp at the wheel that means it could translate to 550hp or more to the crank. Hence the under-rating and dishonesty of Nissan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp
My post directly following his was:

OMG how many times did I have to say it??? Totally under-rated. Even conservatively this thing has a 15% total transmission and drivetrain loss. With all the extra shafts it could be closer to 20% (more efficient maybe than a RS4 drivetrain but more shafts/bearings as well). This means the engine is putting out about 560 - 590 crank hp.

Now we know the whole story...

I also just re-ran the power to weight vs. N'Ring lap time regression with 560 hp and found it to be outperforming the linear fit by a mere 1.7 seconds. Previously, we found in the regression thread that is was 25 seconds faster than the model predicted. If the car really had that good of a driver and tires as good as I expect they are the time is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SPECIAL. It is just like a drag car getting a good drag strip time. hp rules even at the N'Ring.

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped...
Now in Swamps defense and everyone else that agrees with him, there's a huge probability that this is true and there are several comparable data that would suggest that it is the case of under-rating. I personally don't come to any conclusion until there are actual undeniable facts that's presented and shown, anything less is just simply speculations or guesses at best. Which there's nothing wrong with that as long as you present it as such. For example the title of this thread should be change to "GTR might be under-rating" instead of "GTR massively under-rated". The title simply suggest a foregone conclusion base on one dyno-test and the unbelievable performance figures that it has recorded so far. JMHO.

Last edited by gbb357; 12-21-2007 at 08:11 AM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote