[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

OK, ignoring your normal attack mode opening, I'll skip to:

Originally Posted by swamp2

...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.

My experience with chassis dynos (Dynojet and others) has me convinced that 1) They're all over the place in terms of readings, both between different brands, and between different shops using the same brand. 2) The operators are also all over the place. 3) A given shop can give you pretty much any readings they please, within *extremely* wide limits.

After due diligence, I stopped just short of buying a dynojet and renting a place near my home back in 2002, partially due to the above, which I believe is a result of everybody and his brother getting into the game. I'll restate that we don't know anything about that particular dyno, nor the operators, but if torque and horsepower don't cross at 5252 rpm, then just toss the entire thing.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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

Wait a minute. I said "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."

This is a self contradiction? Can I make up my mind?

Of course not! That's the whole point of my posts! I don't know whether the car has been under-rated or is fast around the 'Ring for other reasons that we've been discussing.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

I agree, and thought I had before. However, the reults that agreed with both Car & Driver and Nissan highlighted the fact that unless the Porsche is also under-rated, the Nissan pretty much ain't.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Yeah, I was pretty sure you'd duck and go here. Near as I can tell, your abominably poor results pretty much tell you everything is under-rated. We started with the poor results of the E46 M3, went right to the IS-F, and now we're at the Porsche Turbo, because unless it's also very seriously under-rated, you're in trouble on the GT-R.

As I've already mentioned, once you've taken a stand, dynamite won't budge you.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Finally something we can (almost) agree on. It really is a big question.

However, you forgot to mention the GT-R's apparently universal rave-about-it chassis as being a real factor - at least compared to the Porsche Turbo.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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

Snicker.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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?

Already have. I do so again.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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?

Japan, Inc. collectively bought in and re-rated their engines in 2006, I believe. Toyota took the biggest hit by far. They all certify to the new SAE standards now.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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

Yeah, it's now a meaningless point, but I know you like to win.

They (meaning the Japanese manufacturers) were all doing it back then, getting around the "voluntary" 280 HP max.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Far as I know, I haven't waffled in the slightest. There are indicators pointing both ways.

The jury is still out, but we'll find out in '08 pretty much for sure.

Bruce