BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
European Auto Source
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-14-2007, 06:55 PM   #23
Epacy
Reincarnated
134

 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL


Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Hmmm 560 actual hp (rough est.) vs. 480 claimed hp is not dishonest. Give me a break. Over-hyped comments clearly clarified above.
You don't seem to have any problems with BMW being dishonest in underrating their cars...
Nissan isn't the only manufacturer that does it.

As for the time. It is still very special. Do you not consider the CGT or Koenigsegg time special?
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 06:55 PM   #24
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
229

 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI


Posts: 13,783
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBMW View Post
That definitely is alot of power from a V6 TT. Makes me curious how much potential the turbos have left for the tuners to crank out. I don't imagine that Nissan would of fully tapped the car, but damn that is alot of power out of a V6.
560hp is amazing for a production 3.8L motor. The tuners sill still have plenty of room to work though, just like they do with the Porsche H6. Now whether the new GTR V6 will take upwards of 1000hp on stock internals like the old Nissan RB26DETT remains to be seen. But I am sure we will see 700hp, 800hp, probably even 900hp from the tuners within a year, even if they have to rebuild the motor from the bottom up to get there.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 07:13 PM   #25
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck View Post
I know I won't feel inadequate when I'm at a stoplight and a GT-R pulls up, then blows my M3 away. The GT-R has more HP and AWD, of course it's faster. Why the agony here? The M3 can't be the champ at everything, but it might be the perfect car depending on what you're looking for.....
+1.

+1 on lucids last post as well.

Both nicely stated, honest and important.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 07:52 PM   #26
gbb357
Captain
47

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York


Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Stop hatin people.

Let's not get carried away here. This is from one source only so far, nobody even knows what the article says and how credible and reliable it is. What if it's an early prototype of a chip being tested on the GTR. It wasn't that long ago when you Swamp doubted the ISF and right away called it being over-rated even after i posted a dyno test done by Automobilemag confirming the hp ratings to be correct. And to keep calling it over hyped is just ridiculous, stop hatin. The whole hyped about the GTR is it's performance not the hp figures. The performance figures where out way before the hp figures came out. So far ony one mag has confirmed the 0-60, lets wait and see if the peformance live up to what they're publishing.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:11 PM   #27
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
56

 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah


Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel View Post
560hp is amazing for a production 3.8L motor. The tuners sill still have plenty of room to work though, just like they do with the Porsche H6. Now whether the new GTR V6 will take upwards of 1000hp on stock internals like the old Nissan RB26DETT remains to be seen. But I am sure we will see 700hp, 800hp, probably even 900hp from the tuners within a year, even if they have to rebuild the motor from the bottom up to get there.
I have heard that Nissan specifically built the engine in a way to make it very difficult for the tuners to extract a lot more power. That being said, FI turners are known to pull off miracles.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:12 PM   #28
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
56

 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah


Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
How about these quotes?

"Unfortunately (or fortunately), we hit a load of traffic on the return leg. This allowed us to test the Nissan in everyday driving. The first thing we noticed was how the steering began to feel a bit dead on center and rubbery on initial turn-in when the car is driven at more sane speeds."

"It was so much fun that we tried two more launches, maybe that was a bad idea. Just after the third try, a warning light labeled AWD lit up telling us, "Houston, we have problem". This light show reminded us of Tokyo at night and also brought along a load of heat radiating through the rear center console."

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews..._r/index1.html

Overall, the review is positive, like most M3 reviews are, but this car seems to have its issues as well. Doesn't the steering comment sound surprisingly similar to the comments on the M3 steering that you seem to be so dissappointed with? A transmission that overheats when stressed during launch is not exactly something to ignore.

I am sure the GTR will prove to be a great car. However, it clearly isn't perfect, the way the M3 isn't...
I agree with everything you said.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:27 PM   #29
gbb357
Captain
47

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York


Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Another article from MotorAuthority:

Article from Nagtroc:http://www.nagtroc.com/forums/R35-Dyno-t20782.html

Quote:
A few days ago we were talking about Nissan wanting to get the GT-R to an SAE-certified 480hp so it would match the Porsche 911 Turbo, one of its chief rivals. It looks like that should be an easy feat if the dyno numbers coming out of Japan today are solid - and it looks like they are. According to testing done on a Dynapack dynamometer, the new GT-R pumps 482PS (475hp) to all four hubs, with torque peaking at 580Nm (428lb-ft) at the hubs.

Assuming parasitic drivetrain losses around 15% - although the loss could be even larger given the GT-Rs all-wheel drive platform - that would put power at the crank around 550hp and 495lb-ft of torque - absolutely insane numbers for a 3.8L engine, twin-turbo or not. Suspicious? Head on over to NAGTROC, the North American GT-R Owners Club forums, where poster Chuck H has links to photographic evidence of the testing, complete with shots of the dyno screen.
Quote:
While these numbers seem to fit more aptly with the GT-Rs 3800lb curb weight and its scorching Ring times, it still seems odd that a car with a drag coefficient of 0.27 would top out at anything under 200mph with 550hp under the hood. Maybe theres more to this story than meets the eye. Well keep you updated as things unfold.

Thanks to Jeff for the tip!
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:35 PM   #30
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epacy View Post
You don't seem to have any problems with BMW being dishonest in underrating their cars...
Nissan isn't the only manufacturer that does it.

As for the time. It is still very special. Do you not consider the CGT or Koenigsegg time special?
I do have problems with under-rating from any manufacturer. It is a game, whereas I believe in truth, engineering, honesty and standardized testing and certification well above the marketing departments "interpretation" of the numbers. Oh yeah I like apple pie as well

See my previous comments about why I fully agree the GT-R is a special car despite this dishonesty.

Last edited by swamp2; 12-15-2007 at 02:37 AM.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:36 PM   #31
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
56

 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah


Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck View Post
I know I won't feel inadequate when I'm at a stoplight and a GT-R pulls up, then blows my M3 away. The GT-R has more HP and AWD, of course it's faster. Why the agony here? The M3 can't be the champ at everything, but it might be the perfect car depending on what you're looking for.....
Logic in a sea of bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne View Post
I really don't care, because it's a Nissan. Hence my previous post!

Could never ever bring myself to own a Nissan.
This is the badge blinded rubbish that makes the serious BMW enthusiast shudder. BMW once again finds it's new target market and adds more fuel to the BMW poseur jokes within industry.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:42 PM   #32
UltimateBMW
Brigadier General
189

 
UltimateBMW's Avatar
 
Drives: MP4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South


Posts: 3,287
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Street cred is not my gig, but to each his own. A touch to the throttle would prove it very quickly. The big advantage of the GT-R to the M3 is obvious. Gobs and gobs of torque. Much better power with maybe slightly better mileage. All wheel drive for all seasons. And maybe most importantly, the cars resale value will be a lot better. This car is going to go down as one of the all time greats, independent of it's incredible price/performance ratio.
I think you misunderstood what I was getting at slightly. Street cred isn't what I'm after either, hence my worry about the situation. I want the car i'll bet getting just for the enjoyment of having it and driving it, not to shame car nublets.

The GTR will definitely have a presence on the road. And I was worried that because of that presence I would feel paranoid or pressured if owning one that someone would either be jealous enough to actually harm the car or that they would constantly try to prove themselves against it on the road. Obviously the latter is resolvable with a throttle blip, but after the 100th time I'm sure it would get annoying.

My bottom line question is.. when driving a car around town, which car would you be more cautious and careful with?
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 08:46 PM   #33
Epacy
Reincarnated
134

 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL


Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
This is the badge blinded rubbish that makes the serious BMW enthusiast shudder. BMW once again finds it's new target market and adds more fuel to the BMW poseur jokes within industry.
+1, not a fan of those statements by Champagne.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 09:27 PM   #34
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Let's not get carried away here. This is from one source only so far, nobody even knows what the article says and how credible and reliable it is. What if it's an early prototype of a chip being tested on the GTR. It wasn't that long ago when you Swamp doubted the ISF and right away called it being over-rated even after i posted a dyno test done by Automobilemag confirming the hp ratings to be correct. And to keep calling it over hyped is just ridiculous, stop hatin. The whole hyped about the GTR is it's performance not the hp figures. The performance figures where out way before the hp figures came out. So far ony one mag has confirmed the 0-60, lets wait and see if the peformance live up to what they're publishing.
You directly follow this post that cautions us all not to get carried away with a post providing more of the very details that establish the case that the car is clearly under-rated. Dislexia much?

Let's not keep going back to the IS-F. The simulations with the incorrect final drive pointed to a very likely under-rating of the IS-F. The revised simulation with the correct FD as well as the actual performance numbers still points to a potential under-rating. Bruce A's simulations also pointed to a potential under-rating of the IS-F. If it is under-rated it is slight, 5-20 hp. Get over it.

Let me be perfectly clear on this one. The GT-R is under-rated, period. There is simply no way it can achieve the numbers it has at its stated power and weight figures. The regression analysis shows it, 1/4 simulation times show it and the dyno now shows it as well. Even accounting for jworms good point about the specific dyno type there is still no way the resulting dyno numbers are consistent with a stated 480 crank hp. How much evidence do you need exaclty?

Last edited by swamp2; 12-15-2007 at 02:38 AM.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 09:34 PM   #35
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epacy View Post
+1, not a fan of those statements by Champagne.
+1. I'll jump on that bandwagon as well. I would own a Nissan, I loved the little Sentra SE-R version when it came out and challenged the incumbent GTI. Of course the GT-R is just a bit different than that... The 350Z is pretty darn nice looking and performing as well.

Without some further explanation, Champ, you are looking like a blind, brand loyalist. If you would not own a Nissan just because of it's status, that is certainly your right, but to deny the massive delivery that is the GT-R or to think that the BMW name means it is a "superior" car is really a bit over the top.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 09:35 PM   #36
gbb357
Captain
47

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York


Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Let's put this in perspective.

Enzo: Carrera GT: GTR:
0 - mile 11.3 seconds 11.4 seconds 11.5 seconds est.
0 - 60 mph 3.4 seconds 3.9 seconds 3.5 seconds est.
0 - 100 mph 6.5 seconds 7.1 seconds 8.0 seconds est.
Horsepower 660hp 612hp 580hp est.

If this performance figures are over-hyped, then what the hell are we going to call other cars that performs less than these numbers, regardless of price.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 09:44 PM   #37
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Enzo: Carrera GT: GTR:
0 - ¼ mile 11.3 seconds 11.4 seconds 11.5 seconds est.
0 - 60 mph 3.4 seconds 3.9 seconds 3.5 seconds est.
0 - 100 mph 6.5 seconds 7.1 seconds 8.0 seconds est.
Horsepower 660hp 612hp 580hp est.

If this performance figures are over-hyped, then what the hell are we going to call other cars that performs less than these numbers, regardless of price.
You keep, as you seem to do so religously, missing the point.

NO ONE IS SAYING THE CARS PERFORMANCE IS OVER-RATED OR OVER-HYPED. Furthermore anyone who would say the the price to performance ratio is over-hyped would simply have to be insane. Carlos, the Nissan CEO, is probably correct in that this car's price to performance ratio is absolutely untouchable.

What is over-hyped is peoples false beliefs that Nissan has re-invented the sports car with some physics defying capabilities, i.e. that it can do what has been observed and claimed with its claimed power. My estimate is that the car has 520 crank hp. minimum.

Lastly I would adjust your table above for the GT-R to read 1/4 mi. in 11.7 s (est) as I have seen that figure, but am not sure if it has been obtained. I would also decide if you are going to quote manufacturers claimed hp or a reasonable estimate of hp. Those numbers are IMO, 480 and 520 (min, est.) respectively.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 10:57 PM   #38
gbb357
Captain
47

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York


Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You keep, as you seem to do so religously, missing the point.

NO ONE IS SAYING THE CARS PERFORMANCE IS OVER-RATED OR OVER-HYPED. Furthermore anyone who would say the the price to performance ratio is over-hyped would simply have to be insane. Carlos, the Nissan CEO, is probably correct in that this car's price to performance ratio is absolutely untouchable.

What is over-hyped is peoples false beliefs that Nissan has re-invented the sports car with some physics defying capabilities, i.e. that it can do what has been observed and claimed with its claimed power. My estimate is that the car has 520 crank hp. minimum.

Lastly I would adjust your table above for the GT-R to read 1/4 mi. in 11.7 s (est) as I have seen that figure, but am not sure if it has been obtained. I would also decide if you are going to quote manufacturers claimed hp or a reasonable estimate of hp. Those numbers are IMO, 480 and 520 (min, est.) respectively.
Which people are you talking about that has these false beliefs? What people think are not what creates the hype it's what the manufacturers publishes and tells the media and consumers that creates hype. The Ring time is still not official and 7:50 in partly wet conditions is still not bad and 12 secs. from the original claim, which is still possible. The only false claim so far is the horsepower and that is still not officially proven as a fact, but it does seems like it is well under-rated, i'm guessing 550hp. Here's the web-site from Dynapack, they explain how it works. Apparently the Dynapack uses hydraulic brakes just like an engine dyno that measures from the crank.

http://www.dynapack.com/dynapack.html
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 11:00 PM   #39
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
23

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA


Posts: 1,907
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
...Let me be perfectly clear on this one. The GT-R is under-rated, period. There is simply no way it can achieve the numbers it has at its stated power and weight figures. The regression analysis shows it, 1/4 simulation times show it and the dyno now shows it as well. Even accounting for jworms good point about the specific dyno type there is still no way the resulting dyno numbers are consistent with a stated 480 crank hp. How much evidence do you need exaclty?
OK Swamp, deep breath time.

To me, the jury is pretty much still out on this one. I read that Edmunds thing and thought that the 911 Turbo's superior acceleration at high speed seemed about right, given similar power and lighter weight (although aerodynamics gets more important than HP/weight as speeds rise).

Then I thought about slightly better GT-R performance against the six-speed 911 turbo in the quarter and thought OK, that trans has got to be worth something against an old-fashioned six-speed, right? Even the Tiptronic kicks the six-speed's butt, right?

So what the hell, here comes that dumbed down Quarter, Jr. program again.

I find some specs out on the net (4.05 first gear etc., 3.70 final drive, 480 HP etc.), plug in the best traction number (Quarter, Jr. don't know nuthin 'bout no all wheel drive stuff), and at 3970 pounds with a launch at 2800 rpm (who knows?), the thing runs an 11.69 at 120 flat.

That suggests (to me) that it may be making around 492 HP (or about 2.5% higher than rated) given a 121 MPH quoted pass by Nissan - assuming they ran it with full tank and a 170 pound hot-shoe aboard. With a 120 pound anorexic hot-shoe or 50 pounds less than a full tank, we get an 11.64 @ 120.5, so hell, we're down in the weeds here as far as Nissan being cute on power ratings goes.

Yeah, I know, there's that sterling 'Ring time, but hey, that 7.38 is only two seconds up on Rorhl's best pass in the 911, right? Plus pretty much everybody (including Edmunds) says that the GT-R is simply mahvelous (dahling!) in the twisties compared to the Porsche. We know Rorhl is an effing genius behind the wheel, but Nissan probably isn't going to put Ghosn's wife behind the wheel for a time this important, either.

I think the jury is still deliberating, and we'll see after the car is in general hands, but I'm beginning to think we have the genuine article here - no cheating, or if cheating, at least only a smidge.

Bruce

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-14-2007 at 11:09 PM. Reason: Spelling
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 11:38 PM   #40
Voltigeur
MacroRisk
Australia
55

 
Voltigeur's Avatar
 
Drives: M3 E92 ED'09 / 335d Sport DD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: TX


Posts: 2,519
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
No surprise here. The GTR's last three iterations were all underrated big time...
Yep - in part to placate the Japanese authorities who dislike these hot cars (well, the modder crowd that gets them and then boosts 'em even higher).
__________________

Just thinking of something not so witty
///M3 E92 '09 Jerez Black | 6MT | Ext Fox Red | Tech | Prem | 19s |Heated Seats | iPod |Smartphone | Euro Deliv June 09
Sold: 540iT / 530i / 323i
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2007, 12:31 AM   #41
gbb357
Captain
47

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York


Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You directly follow this post that cautions us all not to get carried away with a post providing more of the very details that establish the case that the car is clearly over-rated. Dislexia much?

Let's not keep going back to the IS-F. The simulations with the incorrect final drive pointed to a very likely under-rating of the IS-F. The revised simulation with the correct FD as well as the actual performance numbers still points to a potential under-rating. Bruce A's simulations also pointed to a potenial under-rating of the IS-F. If it is under-rated it is slight, 5-20 hp. Get over it.

Let me be perfectly clear on this one. The GT-R is under-rated, period. There is simply no way it can achieve the numbers it has at its stated power and weight figures. The regression analysis shows it, 1/4 simulation times show it and the dyno now shows it as well. Even accounting for jworms good point about the specific dyno type there is still no way the resulting dyno numbers are consistent with a stated 480 crank hp. How much evidence do you need exaclty?
The only reason i'm bringing up the ISF thread because it's a similar situation where you easily jump into conclusions about a car being sooo grossly under-rated, i believe you guessed it at 470hp. Anyway, i know you are sooo happy about this news, so have your fun and celebration, keep thinking how over-hyped the GTR is like it really matters. I don't neccessarily need evidence, but a more reliable and popular source would'nt hurt either and not just one but several.
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2007, 01:00 AM   #42
lucid
Major General
United_States
174

 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA


Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne View Post
I really don't care, because it's a Nissan. Hence my previous post!

Could never ever bring myself to own a Nissan.
Why not? What's wrong with owning a Nissan? I've owned two 300ZXs, and they were great sports cars. They were much more fun to drive than my current BMW 325ci. The BMW name itself does not add anything to the experience. I guess you wouldn't want to own a twin turbo Supra either since that's a Toyota. How about a Corvette? That's made by GM. So, that's probably not good enough either.
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2007, 02:50 AM   #43
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
OK Swamp, deep breath time.

To me, the jury is pretty much still out on this one. I read that Edmunds thing and thought that the 911 Turbo's superior acceleration at high speed seemed about right, given similar power and lighter weight (although aerodynamics gets more important than HP/weight as speeds rise).

Then I thought about slightly better GT-R performance against the six-speed 911 turbo in the quarter and thought OK, that trans has got to be worth something against an old-fashioned six-speed, right? Even the Tiptronic kicks the six-speed's butt, right?

So what the hell, here comes that dumbed down Quarter, Jr. program again.

I find some specs out on the net (4.05 first gear etc., 3.70 final drive, 480 HP etc.), plug in the best traction number (Quarter, Jr. don't know nuthin 'bout no all wheel drive stuff), and at 3970 pounds with a launch at 2800 rpm (who knows?), the thing runs an 11.69 at 120 flat.

That suggests (to me) that it may be making around 492 HP (or about 2.5% higher than rated) given a 121 MPH quoted pass by Nissan - assuming they ran it with full tank and a 170 pound hot-shoe aboard. With a 120 pound anorexic hot-shoe or 50 pounds less than a full tank, we get an 11.64 @ 120.5, so hell, we're down in the weeds here as far as Nissan being cute on power ratings goes.

Yeah, I know, there's that sterling 'Ring time, but hey, that 7.38 is only two seconds up on Rorhl's best pass in the 911, right? Plus pretty much everybody (including Edmunds) says that the GT-R is simply mahvelous (dahling!) in the twisties compared to the Porsche. We know Rorhl is an effing genius behind the wheel, but Nissan probably isn't going to put Ghosn's wife behind the wheel for a time this important, either.

I think the jury is still deliberating, and we'll see after the car is in general hands, but I'm beginning to think we have the genuine article here - no cheating, or if cheating, at least only a smidge.

Bruce
Bruce, true or false, AWD systems exhibit significantly larger drivetrain losses than RWD vehicles of a similar component quality? Also true or false, a transmission located at the rear of a vehicle with an extra drive shaft to get power back up front also creates more losses than not having those components? Last but not least, true or false. Running a simulation assuming the GT-R is a RWD vehicle (which is what Quarter Jr. is doing) will fairly drastically underestimate the drivetrain losses of the vehicle?

Conclusion: Quarter Jr. software is not a very reliable judge of a AWD + rear tranmissioned vehicle since it misses out on a significant amount of loss the car will have.

Underestimating the drivetrain loss by only 5% (using the rough but reasonable estimate that RWD total drivetrain loss is approx. 15% and AWD is approx. 20%) could make Quarter Jr. underestimate the under-rating of the car by that same 5% of the vehicles total power or about 25 hp.
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2007, 03:22 AM   #44
swamp2
Lieutenant General
United_States
324

 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA


Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Which people are you talking about that has these false beliefs?
Many of the folks on the power to weight vs. N'Ring regression thread and others on the thread about the 7:38 time as well. Many believed without a shred of skepticism that the 7:38 time and the amount the GT-R was an outlier in the regression analysis were points to simply be discarded. Not to mention Nissan fanboys all over other forums all over the internet.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST