View Single Post
      12-21-2007, 12:42 PM   #168
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Once again, sorry for the delay...

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Bruce,

I take it you have read the times that the GTR has achieved with Edmunds, 0-60mph in 3.3s and a 1/4mile in 11.6s 120mph are both times which surely aren't common place with cars that have 480ps and weigh over 3800lbs.

I don't know anything like the amount both you and swamp do but I have had some experience with the TVR Cerbera 4.2v8 and it was a car which seemed to hit above it's weight compared to other compatible machines but it's achievement in this don't even come close to matching the GTR in respect to this.

P.S.

The times it has been producing around the Suzkuka track in many ways is even more incredible than it's acceleration as the list of cars it's quicker than are more track based than even it's meant for.

Either this is a case of Japanese propaganda at it's extreme or dare I say it again, one of the most advanced and complete cars currently available.
My one experience with a TVR was quite a number of years ago, and I don't even remember the model. It was a straight six, if memory serves, and the acceleration was pretty much chiropractic. It also seemed to have more engine than chassis, which only made it more fun.

However, it's a completely different beast than the GT-R. The GT-R is all about astounding competence, and my guess is that overall it'll be less fun to throw around than the TVR.

The Edmunds numbers are spectacular, but also seem to be in very good agreement with what Nissan says, and if you look at the (admittedly incomplete) weather specs for the test, those conditions seem to be fairly close to the old SEA (gross) Standard Day specs, which means the car was getting a free 5% bump in power compared to the current SAE Net Specs.

Their Porsche Turbo was also run under similar "dense" weather conditions, and though it was down on mph compared to the GT-R, it also is hampered in that regard because of the five speed torque convertor gearbox. In fact, the Car & Driver test of the Porsche Tiptronic showed 122 mph, which for me was a bit of an anomaly. I'm betting the car had a nice cooldown and that was a first pass with everything no more than warm to the touch.

Back on the GT-R, history shows us that Japan Automotive, Inc. is very careful in making sure the cars they provide are right up to the top of the spec, and although subsequent production cars may or may not be slower, they will *not* be faster.

As an example of "top of the spec", you can be quite sure that if max boost is 10 psi, with an allowable range of 9.5 to 10.5, the early test mules will be at 10.5. Bet on it.

One way that Nissan might hedge a little on the current witnessed SAE Certified test runs is to provide an engine that is closer to the 9.5 allowed max boost level rather than the specified 10. I'm making this up, you understand, because the SAE may not in fact allow that, but that would give them an approximate 2% fudge factor against the rating.

The cars are also blowing everything away on the short tracks (where power to weight is less important) because of the total awd, DSG, well-balanced package.

Yeah, the GT-R is the real thing, mostly because as I've mentioned before, it pretty well has to be, or Both Nissan and Japan Automotive Inc. lose face - and that can't be allowed.

Bruce