Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.