[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all, let's agree on terms. You have no evidence at all. None.

Maybe semantics here Bruce (or very non standard word use on your behalf). Evidence is not synonymous with irrefutable evidence. Your statement, in light of the evidence could not be much more inane. Now that this is clear as daylight lets discuss the evidence.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

- I contend that the dyno test is an unknown quantity. We don't know about the dyno, we don't know about the particular car (chipped or not, for instance), and though I haven't glanced at the results myself yet, now it seems that there may be an issue with the validity of everything about that test.

We know something about the dyno, perhaps you missed post #4 by jworms which I already referred to? Time to read. This dyno has read about 10% higher on his car compared to a more familar dynojet dyno. RWHP that is 10% too high but is already equal to claimed hp works out to be about 13% higher than the wheel value at the crank (just .9/.8, using 20% loss). This brings us right back to 50 or so hp under-rated.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

- The 'Ring test isn't indicative of anything I can think of other than it's a flyer. The car may be naturally fast (more on that in a minute), or in fact the car may be under-rated.

Holy self-contradictions, a mere one sentence apart. Do you even read what you write? Can you make up your mind?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

When I simulated the GT-R and came up with results that were very close to spot on (according to Nissan's numbers), that was kind of interesting. When you reminded me of the drivetrain differences (properly, I thought), I ran the Porsche not to somehow validate the tool, but to find out how the Porsche simulation would also turn out. Obviously, if it too came out pretty much spot on (which it did), then looking at the compared results makes sense, since both cars have awd with the resulting penalties.

Result? The Porsche was faster then the GT-R in the standing quarter mile (by a tenth and a single MPH), and if you do power to weight, it should've been two tenths and two mph faster. Wow! That's a whole tenth and one MPH those Nissan bastards aren't owning up to.

But wait! The Nissan has the hot-damn trans and the Porsche (equipped with the "better" of its two inferior choices) has a damned torque-converter automatic, which we know (especially you) takes power to run.

The fact that these cars are so close, with the Porsche being a little faster according to Car & Driver vs Nissan marketing, should give you pause, Swamp.

I don't think my sims nor yours are particularly strong here. So let's put those aside for now. I have admitted why mine are only so-so, however, you will not yet seem to admit the most basic truth about Quarter Jr. and your application of it, clearly and irrefutably highlighted in my previous post - the AWD issue. This makes your sims right for the wrong reasons. You simply can not tout the accuracy of the software for RWD and AWD cases when all logic and common sense tells you it can not get both correct for the right reasons.

One example of dyno runs I have seen for the 997 Turbo are here (just from a quick google). They give 429 hp/457 tq and if you believe the manufacturers claimed outputs this gives a drivetrain loss for hp at 11% and tq at a mere 4%. Possible or not, you tell me? I'd say this is some fairly good evidence of under-rating here as well, this would also be somewhat consistent with your QJ runs allowing for the higher drivetrain loss being balanced by the under-rating.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

On to the 'Ring. My contention is that the GT-R is a superior handler compared to the Porsche Turbo, and while everyone on the planet hasn't tested the GT-R yet, those who have think the handling is the best part about it, while we *know* what test drivers think of the Porsche at ten tenths. My favorite quote is "It takes three feet to driver a Porsche Turbo fast." OK, the current 911s are the best ever, but they still wield the threatening sword of physics at ten tenths. The Nissan is nearly as fast in a straight line (probably due to its transmission), but definitely quicker in the twisties. It turns out the Nissan is a little quicker around the 'Ring, and I'm guessing that while it was undoubtedly very exciting during those laps, it was very relaxed compared to the Porsche Turbo. My guess is that the legendary Rorhl ran up a dry cleaning bill during that 7:40 pass.

If you read much of the N'Ring regression post you would have learned by now that the vast majority of a cars time is simply due to power to weight ratio. On a very tight, lower speed course or something like an autocross handling, weight and skidpad results will be more important but on the N'ring it is mostly about acceleration in the straights and the near straights. We already know that the GT-Rs ace driver, DCT tranny and likely near race compound street tires are definitely responsible for a lot of its great lap time. Could these without and under-rating let it achieve that time? That is the big question.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Then there's the Edmunds article, which waxed poetic about GT-R handling, but declared the Porsche to be quicker in a straight line (out on the street) in side by side and follow the leader runs. The Porsche could not keep up in the twisties, but was the quicker car in a straight line.

Swamp, why doesn't that give you pause. The Porsche should be mildly quicker in a straight line and apparently it is.

Sure, and then there is that pesky/likely 997 Turbo under-rating issue as well. See above...

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As for your CarTest runs, I have trouble with giving them any credibility at all just yet. However, I'm betting that if you run the Porsche, it will be a bit ahead of the Nissan, just as in my simulations, but you'll also show the Porsche as being under-rated.

I should do more with CarTest and the 997 Turbo, but again I have not posted results for either nor for the 335i because I admit I have not found the results very satisfactory. I only mention them in passing/off the cuff. More work to be done here. Why can't you be as honest and admit that QJ and your application of it is either good for 2WD or 4WD but not both?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Finally, there's that whole SAE thing. Almost certainly, the Nissan will show "correct" numbers on the dyno or the SAE will throw them out - and of course if you're correct then the GT-R will be a comparitive pig when our magazine guys give it a run. Won't happen, though. I'd bet quite a bit that the SAE numbers have already been run under current (SAE representative present) rules.

I'm not sure if Nissan has or will use the same official SAE hp standards that GM uses (say for the Z06 at just over 500 hp). Do they currently certify per SAE?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Nissan is not only betting at least a couple of decades of legendary performance by past iterations of their baby, they're also betting that the car will be a worldwide legend, or the entire Japanese car industry loses face.

As I undestand the history Nissan Skylines/GT-Rs have a nice long tradition of being under-rated, not a big surprise here!

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Nope. The data points we've discussed collectively point to the fact that the jury is still out. Personally, I think the Nissan will be on the up and up, but we'll see.

You sure keep waffling on whether or not there is evidence here. I agree that the jury is out in that we can not say absolutely with no doubt that the car is under-rated. Perhaps the only way to settle that would be by removing the engine and putting it on a very accurate, factory quality engine dyno and that probably is not going to happen. I agreed that my thread title may have been a bit premature or aggressive but no way will I back from the claim that there is evidence and good evidence for an under-rating.