BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92) - View Single Post - Nissan GT-R might not be as under-rated as we all had suspected:

swamp2 · 03-14-2008, 03:01 AM

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.

03-14-2008, 03:01 AM	#10
swamp2 Lieutenant General 609 Rep 10,407 Posts Drives: E92 M3 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Diego, CA USA iTrader: (3)	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.
	Appreciate 0 Quote