Nissan GT-R Nurburgring time - 7:38

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by consolidated

The GT-R is last week's superimport...in other words, sllloooww.

Lexus LF-A, Nurburgring 7:24

http://www.autospies.com/news/Lexus-...seconds-24268/

Is it official? And does a prototype or non-production car count? Either way, that is pretty fast.

[footie]

Originally Posted by consolidated

The GT-R is last week's superimport...in other words, sllloooww.

Lexus LF-A, Nurburgring 7:24

http://www.autospies.com/news/Lexus-...seconds-24268/

This news put into focus what Toyota can achieve when they put their mind to it. So like I told swamp in the IS-F thread

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

I don't doubt the M3 will out-sell the Lexus, the same was true on the RS4 yet it was regarded the better car. That was not my point, people here just assume that BMW will continue to beat all comers and that is a very silly belief to have, especially against a company the size of Toyota. If the IS-F isn't quite as good as the M3 at everything they won't just pack their bags and go home, they will fine-tune it until it is as good if not better and by this I don't mean when a new model is launched.

All I am saying is don't count your chicken that the IS-F would be on top sooner than you think.

The world's biggest motoring manufacturer didn't get there by being second all the time.

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by footie

This news put into focus what Toyota can achieve when they put their mind to it. So like I told swamp in the IS-F thread



The world's biggest motoring manufacturer didn't get there by being second all the time.

I understand your point but the LF-A and IS-F are entirely different automobiles.

I imagine the the LF-A will be a near exotic, $100K+, compete with the R8/10, GT2, starter Lambo/Ferraris and upspec'd GT-R.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by consolidated

I understand your point but the LF-A and IS-F are entirely different automobiles.

I imagine the the LF-A will be a near exotic, $100K+, compete with the R8/10, GT2, starter Lambo/Ferraris and upspec'd GT-R.

At sub 7:30 N'Ring times there is not a lot of competition from Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrai nor Nissan. I also do not think many in the market for a Ferrari or Lamborghini would consider a Lexus no matter the N'Ring time. That being said I am sure the LF-A will be a brilliant car.

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by swamp2

At sub 7:30 N'Ring times there is not a lot of competition from Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrai nor Nissan. I also do not think many in the market for a Ferrari or Lamborghini would consider a Lexus no matter the N'Ring time. That being said I am sure the LF-A will be a brilliant car.

makes me wonder who would be the anticipated market for a $100,000 Lexus supercar?

[footie]

Originally Posted by consolidated

I understand your point but the LF-A and IS-F are entirely different automobiles.

I imagine the the LF-A will be a near exotic, $100K+, compete with the R8/10, GT2, starter Lambo/Ferraris and upspec'd GT-R.

Actually I think you are missing my point. We all know the LF-A and IS-F are totally different machines and in the case of the LF-A Toyota are using all resources to make the car as good as possible but with the IS-F Toyota will make sure it's at least as good as the competition if not better.

[gbb357]

2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#12



I like these part of the article.

This car has no competitors. Not at any price. But that won't prevent one of the first GT-Rs in Europe from being bought by an anonymous man and taken to Porsche AG in Stuttgart for a thorough examination. With an even more powerful and lighter V-Spec GT-R on the way, Porsche can't afford to lag behind for long.

[footie]

Originally Posted by edmunds

No official performance figure exists for that increment, but expect an 8-second 0-100-mph time. It's fast, alright. Nissan says 60 mph comes up in 3.5 seconds, the standing quarter-mile in 11.7 seconds and it goes on to 197 mph.

These figures don't sound like a car with a weight of 1780Kgs and 480hp, especially when you consider the M6 weighs no more and has an extra 27hp and couldn't get within a second of that 0-100mph time.

Could it's awd system and gearbox make that much of a difference or are Nissan being misleading with their output figures.

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by footie

These figures don't sound like a car with a weight of 1780Kgs and 480hp, especially when you consider the M6 weighs no more and has an extra 27hp and couldn't get within a second of that 0-100mph time.

Could it's awd system and gearbox make that much of a difference or are Nissan being misleading with their output figures.

i read somewhere that the gearing is very short, which is why the acceleration is so fast.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by footie

These figures don't sound like a car with a weight of 1780Kgs and 480hp, especially when you consider the M6 weighs no more and has an extra 27hp and couldn't get within a second of that 0-100mph time.

Could it's awd system and gearbox make that much of a difference or are Nissan being misleading with their output figures.

The M6 that was tested in C&D was 4000lbs which i think is wrong. Cars.com has it at 3910lbs, either way like you said it's not that far off from the GTR's weight, so i'm guessing the awd and shorter gearing is probably the difference.

[sdiver68]

I've seen the first actual Japanese customer GT-R car dyno printout:

482 ps (475 hp) and 59.2 kg/m (428 ft-lbs) at the hubs, Dynapack chassis dyno, 4th gear pull , some type of limiter cut in.

http://minkara.carview.co.jp/userid/.../blog/c227132/ if you can read Japanese, but no Japanese required to read the dyno screen shots.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I've seen the first actual Japanese customer GT-R car dyno printout:

482 ps (475 hp) and 59.2 kg/m (428 ft-lbs) at the hubs, Dynapack chassis dyno, 4th gear pull , some type of limiter cut in.

http://minkara.carview.co.jp/userid/.../blog/c227132/ if you can read Japanese, but no Japanese required to read the dyno screen shots.

OMG how many times did I have to say it??? Totally under-rated. Even conservatively this thing has a 15% total transmission and drivetrain loss. With all the extra shafts it could be closer to 20% (more efficient maybe than a RS4 drivetrain but more shafts/bearings as well). This means the engine is putting out about 560 - 590 crank hp.

Now we know the whole story...

I also just re-ran the power to weight vs. N'Ring lap time regression with 560 hp and found it to be outperforming the linear fit by a mere 1.7 seconds. Previously, we found in the regression thread that is was 25 seconds faster than the model predicted. If the car really had that good of a driver and tires as good as I expect they are the time is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SPECIAL.

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped....

That being said 560 hp for $70k is amazing and the car is darn fast.

P.S. I think this is worthy of an main topic so I am going to re-post this!

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped....

That being said 560 hp for $70k is amazing and the car is darn fast.

And that's been my argument the whole time.

[d3l0n]

im a hard core bmw m fan... but any car enthusiast would want this car... skyline has to be on everyones list.. and the look is growing on me, i realize it still is the same design as the concept (which i preferred better) if I have the money, i'd have the skyline gt-r as my sports car and m5 as my daily lol. I love m3, but that has gott to be the play boy car or some shit lol.

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by consolidated

The GT-R is last week's superimport...in other words, sllloooww.

Lexus LF-A, Nurburgring 7:24

http://www.autospies.com/news/Lexus-...seconds-24268/

now that is fast, let's see if the time is validated

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by spearfisher

now that is fast, let's see if the time is validated

I don't think so, it's from a test mule prototype, so i don't think that can be official.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by jaiman

i read somewhere that the gearing is very short, which is why the acceleration is so fast.

Gearing has been known for some time and that is not what is producing the spectacular times. Footie: M6 is an interesting comparison for sure.

Gear/GT-R/M6/Overall % Advantage GT-R
1/4.056/3.99/4%
2/2.301/2.65/-11%
3/1.595/1.81/-10%
4.1.248/1.39/-8%
5/1.001/1.16/-12%
6/.796/1.0/-19%
7/-/.83
FD:3.7/3.62

What this means is that in all gears except 1st the torque multiplication is well in favor of the M6, the higher hp and higher redline should be in its favor as well. However, the actual torque produced by the GT-R is a large advantage for it. To really fully account for gearing you need to consider engine torque vs. rpm, gear ratios, final drive, losses and even tire size. When you do this you can compute accelerating torque and force at the rear wheels. At the end of the day this is the sole thing that accelerates a car. I updated the loss figures for the M6 and GT-R to be as follows (partly based on advice from Bruce A.)

Item/M6/GT-R
Trans/4%/4%
Diff/2%/1%
Axles/6%/3%

Tire and aerodynamics losses remain per CarTest defaults.

The force at the drive wheel then looks like this (1st figure below), again advantage is for the M6. For the acceleration simulations I have used shift times for SMG III at 150 ms (recent G-tech findings at m5board.com) and for the GT-R at 100 ms. I simply do not buy their quoted times of 200 ms for a dual clutch system. The updated performance simulations are shown below.

The numbers for the M6 are too good, again meaning that the loss figures are probably a bit too low for both cars. Adding loss for the GT-R will slow it down and the figures below are close to stated values for 0-60 but still a bit slow for the 1/4 mi. More losses will bring the 1/4 mi figure into the 12's and move the trap even further away from test results. The conclusion still remains that the car is performing better than its power, weight, gearing, etc. dictate.

[jaiman]

I don't want to have a big long debate on this, but the M6 seems to be much faster in simulation than whats been tested:
R&T: http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf

C&D: http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ecs-page3.html

and the GTR seems to be slower. I have a feeling cartest isn't so good at simualting a car with launch control.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by jaiman

I don't want to have a big long debate on this, but the M6 seems to be much faster in simulation than whats been tested:
R&T: http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf

C&D: http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ecs-page3.html

and the GTR seems to be slower. I have a feeling cartest isn't so good at simualting a car with launch control.

Indeed, that was kind of the point. I think the losses that Bruce A. was so certain about are a bit too low. IF that is the case it is likely that the GT-R losses (same for tranny, double for axles and diffs as there are 2 of them) are too low as well. Further evidence for under-rating.