GT-R MASSIVELY under-rated

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Who is saying the car is magical?

Yes, a combination of all those things and more are making the time possible, that is obvious on the face of it. Nothing about any of those factors makes this car less special. Is a Veyron less special because we can understand how slick aerodynamics and 1000+ bhp can make a 250+ mph capable car?

Let's just say it really is 550hp instead of 480hp. The fact that it did 7:38 in The Ring makes it special and it is amongst the level of Zonda's, Porsche's, and other great sports cars. That's what make it special.

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Try this...

http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=476

7:40 - 161.217 km/h - Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)


that time was an estimate from Motortrend, not an actual run...

if Walter can only do a DOCUMENTED 7:49, and Horst a 7:54 on PSC's, NO ONE is doing a 7:40...these guys are 2 of the best, in Porsches AND on the 'Ring...

[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

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Now we have your real motive. Despite numerous videos and the close inspection of nearly every motorjournalist in the world, the 7:38 is not to be believed

please explain why the dyno graphs are doctored?

they can NOT be real...

HP must = Torque at 5250...MUST...it does not...
428 lb ft vs 465 HP

if this is 'suspect' why wouldn't the time be?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by ArtPE

7:40 - 161.217 km/h - Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)


that time was an estimate from Motortrend, not an actual run...

if Walter can only do a DOCUMENTED 7:49, and Horst a 7:54 on PSC's, NO ONE is doing a 7:40...these guys are 2 of the best, in Porsches AND on the 'Ring...

Well, what I read back then was that he was stuck on the 7:49 best after interminable laps, then went to the PSCs and ran the 7:40. No mention of an estimate.

If it was only an estimate, prove it. I know what I read.

Bruce

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Well, what I read back then was that he was stuck on the 7:49 best after interminable laps, then went to the PSCs and ran the 7:40. No mention of an estimate.

If it was only an estimate, prove it. I know what I read.

Bruce

Walter is not listed as the driver...he always is...
no time nor date is provided...
it has no reference...

the definative list: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=0&tID=10073

but here there is....
24. Porsche 997 Turbo 7:49.0 Walter Rohrl using Michelin Pilot Sport Cups
reference: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../60424014/1007

7:54 --- 156.456 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/1620 kg (sport auto 06/07)
reference: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=126501
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvBu...e=user&search=

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some folks here had that attitude, although they would not cut to the chase and use the word "magical". Many all over various forums on the web had this attitude as well. I tend to disagree though about what does and does not make the car special. If all of the other very well known factors are what gave the car it's time then again the time is less special. What is the most special IMO about the car is simply it's performance to price ratio and from what I have read how easy it is to drive very fast.

I am one of those folks who has that attitude because the numbers simply speak for themselves. The car is magical. It has supercar numbers at well below a 100k. No other car company can even come close to this kind of price/performance ratio...it's not even close.

Three years ago, I could name the number of people, including Nissan folks, who thought Nissan could match BMW let alone surpass it's highest performance car on zero fingers. They would of been considered idiots for even suggesting the possibility. BMW and the M Division, at any price, can't even build a U.S. spec car to match this Nissan. And do you see anything on BMW's drawing boards that could match it in the next few years? BMW has been caught napping, plain and simple. Who knows if they will ever catch up at this point.

This is what happens when a car company like BMW rests on its Motor Sport laurels and is arrogant enough to believe that no one will ever surpass them. Look at Audi and the R8. The R8 has actually exceeded expectations, just like the GT-R. Do you know how hard it is to exceed expectations in the auto industry in this day and age? Imagine if the M3 would of exceeded everyones expectations as we had hoped, like these two cars? In 5 years, what do you think a used E92 M3 will be worth in comparison to the same year GT-R?

[ArtPE]

SAE HP rating SAE J1349

iirc the tolerance is +/- 1%...they will certify the engine to prevent fraud...http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/brochure.pdf

this also covered by Federal consumer law and the insurance institutes...

it would be risky to allow a mfg to state a car makes 400 HP when it makes 600...you could be sued...

'I wrecked, it had too much power, I bought it thinking 400, but it had 600!! oh woe is me....'

General Motors has become the first manufacturer to certify an engine's power and torque ratings using a newly adopted SAE standard (J2723), James Queen, GM Vice President, Global Engineering, announced during his keynote address at the SAE World Congress and Exhibition in April 2005. The world's largest automaker plans to certify all of its engines to the voluntary standard, and is encouraging its competitors to do the same. The LS7 engine for the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 was certified under the new standard this month. The 7.0-L V8 unit produces 505 hp (377 kW) at 6300 rpm and 470 lboft (637 Nom) at 4800 rpm. "The new voluntary SAE power and torque certification procedure ensures fair, accurate ratings for horsepower and torque as it uses third-party certification," said Queen. "SAE technical standards level the playing field, and this certification procedure is just the latest example of the value SAE has offered over the past century." To tout power and torque ratings as "SAE-certified," engine manufacturers must have an SAE qualified witness watch over the entire testing procedure to ensure that it is conducted in conformity to SAE standard J1349. Third-party witnessing is the main provision of J2723. An existing SAE standard, J1349, spells out how the actual testing is to be done. J1349 was updated last year to eliminate some ambiguities that allowed engine makers to cite power and torque ratings higher than the engine's actual capabilities. Engine makers are free to cite power and torque figures drived from testing conducted outside the scope of the SAE standards, but they may not claim the figures are SAE-certifed. "We feel that both the consumer and industry are well served by having accurate, consistent ratings from all manufacturers," said David Lancaster, a Technical Fellow in GM Powertrain and Chairman of the SAE Engine Power Test Code Committee that updated J1349 and wrote J2723. Data from a wide array of parameters (e.g., air:fuel ratio) will be collected during testing conducted to the SAE standards. SAE will create a database and offer it to industry in different packages and at different price points.

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by ArtPE

please explain why the dyno graphs are doctored?

they can NOT be real...

HP must = Torque at 5250...MUST...it does not...
428 lb ft vs 465 HP

if this is 'suspect' why wouldn't the time be?

If a third party source, publishes a poorly put together document, it means the n-ring time that was verified by an in-car, time stamped video produced by Nissan must be rigged?

are you for real?


And swamp, the M3 is a great car. It won't be faster than the GT-R, probably won't be much cheaper either. It may have more status in certain groups, and will probably be easier to live with on a day to day basis. If thats what floats your boat, buy the M3. For people who want more performance for their dollar, they can buy the GT-R. But its getting kind of pathetic how you seem to be on a one man crusade against the GT-R.

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by jaiman

If a third party source, publishes a poorly put together document, it means the n-ring time that was verified by an in-car, time stamped video produced by Nissan must be rigged?

are you for real?

yes

just like the cut slicks controversy...

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html

the time was listed on this site, they pulled it because of the slicks

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=0&tID=10073
7.38* -- 161.628 km/h -- Nissan R34 GT-R, *company test driver Suzuki, slick cut tyres, track partially wet http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#40

[southlight]

Originally Posted by ruff

I am one of those folks who has that attitude because the numbers simply speak for themselves. The car is magical. It has supercar numbers at well below a 100k. No other car company can even come close to this kind of price/performance ratio...it's not even close.

Agreed, the remarkable point is not so much GTR`s performance, remarkable is the comparative low price...I wonder if Nissan is making any profit with the GT-R? Maybe it's rather accounted for marketing expenses...


Best regards, south

[Voltigeur]

I wonder why we don't simply wait for more "on the road" comps - they're coming!

I don't expect that the Edmunds' driver's impressions of the GT-R and the 997 Turbo can't be that awry:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123940

The GT-R should be faster than the M3 and likely one of the very fastest cars on the road - so what? It's great for us that such cars are available and even better that a car like the GT-R can be produced for $10's of K less than the greats from Zuffenhausen. Mind you, I bet the Stateside dealers aren't going to sell them at MSRP ..

(quick test: would you pay a $15k premium for a GT-R or a Shelby Mustang 500GT w/ solid axle rear )

My subjective views on Porsches - I love them, in part for their history (even though we know the Zuffenhausen engineers have had to work w/ a compromised design - brilliantly I might add) - matter not a jot.

So while I may prefer a Porsche over a GT-R ($$ no object) then I can also stand back in awe and admire the job that Nissan has done w/ the latest GT-R.

Just my 2c ...

[ruff]

Originally Posted by southlight

Agreed, the remarkable point is not so much GTR`s performance, remarkable is the comparative low price...I wonder if Nissan is making any profit with the GT-R? Maybe it's rather accounted for marketing expenses...


Best regards, south

Can you imagine how much money Nissan has spent on this car, given it's purported limited production status? For one thing, how many 997tts did they purchase to test it against? I would guess Nissan is willing to lose gobs of money in short run with the GT-R in order to bolster it's R&D and marketing value for all it's products. We all know, no car company is in the business of losing money long term. I applaud Nissan's maverick vision and attitude in a conservative auto industry.

[jaiman]

"Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world." "

found here: http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightlin...p=1&cat=Nissan

scroll down to the heading "2009 GTR in Red", Tyson

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by jaiman

"Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world." "

found here: http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightlin...p=1&cat=Nissan

scroll down to the heading "2009 GTR in Red", Tyson

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...?f=23&t=455380

'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno.

'I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry'.

these guys were there, Edmunds was not...they boost stories from others...

hence, the controversy you called me an 'idiot' over...so who's the idiot now?
since there is obviously still doubt what tires were run

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

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

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.

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.
...

No attacking Bruce. You are simply wishy washy to the absolute limit on this topic and it is 100% apparent from you posts. First you say there is absolutely no evidence for an under-rating then you admit the car may be under-rated and are willing to discuss the evidence. Which the hell is it and if the former why all the discussion?

I mostly agree with your thoughts on dynos, much like simulation, garbage in, garbage out and just the same they are much better for relative comparisons rather than absolutes.

How many times do we have to go back to my "abominably poor" simulation results. E46 M3 right on, E92 M3 right on, IS-F, good once the final drive mistake was sorted, C63 AMG effectively enveloped to determine a CLEAR and huge under-rating. If you would stop attacking and insulting my results perhaps I would give you a little break as well. By the way just to clarify my conclusions from simulation is that neither the E46 nor E92 M3 nor Audi R8 is in any way under-rated. C63 AMG is for sure, IS-F maybe slightly under-rated and GT-R, potential under-rating, could be small, could be large.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by jaiman

And swamp, the M3 is a great car. It won't be faster than the GT-R, probably won't be much cheaper either. It may have more status in certain groups, and will probably be easier to live with on a day to day basis. If thats what floats your boat, buy the M3. For people who want more performance for their dollar, they can buy the GT-R. But its getting kind of pathetic how you seem to be on a one man crusade against the GT-R.

I agree with all of that except your categorization of me being on some sort of crusade. The "pathetic" term as well is simply a false, unnecessary and instigating label. You can call it a crusade for sure but my crusade is not in one of badges nor brands. My crusade is for logic, consistency, science, engineering, causality and understanding, it is really that simple. I just don't know how many times I have to wax poetic on the GT-R to make people believe that I love the car, love the performance, love the technology and love the price. You can not finding me say otherwise.

I am sure you also wouldn't believe this but if I felt there was a shred of evidence that the new M3 was under or over rated I would be on that like a bad suit until fully resolved. It makes no difference if I personally like the car or will likely purchase one or not. CONSISTENCY and UNDERSTANDING are again the keys!


P.S. It looks like you are getting in to it with unnecessary insults toward Art as well. My advice here really is to cool it a bit!

[ArtPE]

re: GTR

if it's almost as fast as the 997TT that's an accomplishment...
ie, 7:50-7:55 range in production trim...

why? because it weighs 300 lbs more, has 16% less torque, and the 997TT has been developed over the last 20 years by probably the premier sports car maker in the world...so if it's close to it, that's saying something, for much less $$$ to boot...why isn't that good enough?

but this unrealistic 7:38 time, and now the bogus dynos, are weakening the cars credibility...a Cd of 0.27? come on, that's prius territory...the M3 is quoted at 0.31, and was tested by sportAUTO at 0.33...

we won't know anything until production 'across the counter' cars are tested by reputable, independent sources...sportAUTO will be the key...standard procedures, same driver...

until then, it's all about choices...choices are good...but just because someone doubts the validity of the data, does not make them a hater...call them a skeptic...boring world if everyone drove the same car, no?

I would do the same for BMW if they made crazy claims, but they seem to have hit their mark...
maybe the mark was not as high as some would like, but it was realistic, and achieved...

[jaiman]

Originally Posted by ArtPE

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...?f=23&t=455380

'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno.

'I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry'.

these guys were there, Edmunds was not...they boost stories from others...

hence, the controversy you called me an 'idiot' over...so who's the idiot now?
since there is obviously still doubt what tires were run

since you like pistonheads so much, http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/roadtes...p?c=47&i=17295

"Nissan claims its testers have recorded a 7min 37sec lap of the Nurburgring but, apparently, certain sections of the lap were wet when the time was set. They also have data for a 7min 38sec lap on which the driver was blocked by a slower car for several corners. Both laps were recorded using original equipment Bridgestone RE070A tyres, in other words with the car containing no secret tweaks or tricks. "

and i called you an idiot because you seem to believe if one party publishes false information about the GT-R, all information is then made false, regardless of who published it.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

My crusade is for logic, consistency, science, engineering, causality and understanding, it is really that simple.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I just don't know how many times I have to wax poetic on the GT-R to make people believe that I love the car, love the performance, love the technology and love the price. You can not finding me say otherwise.

If I may.

If what you claim is really true, then isn't the the GT-R the logical choice.

I just don't know how many times you need to repeat your supposed praise for the GT-R, then go out and search for every simulation performance number you can find that puts the M3 in a good light and the GT-R in a not so good light.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am sure you also wouldn't believe this but if I felt there was a shred of evidence that the new M3 was under or over rated I would be on that like a bad suit until fully resolved. It makes no difference if I personally like the car or will likely purchase one or not. CONSISTENCY and UNDERSTANDING are again the keys!

Numb steering, brake fade?

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by jaiman

since you like pistonheads so much, http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/roadtes...p?c=47&i=17295

"Nissan claims its testers have recorded a 7min 37sec lap of the Nurburgring but, apparently, certain sections of the lap were wet when the time was set. They also have data for a 7min 38sec lap on which the driver was blocked by a slower car for several corners. Both laps were recorded using original equipment Bridgestone RE070A tyres, in other words with the car containing no secret tweaks or tricks. "

and i called you an idiot because you seem to believe if one party publishes false information about the GT-R, all information is then made false, regardless of who published it.

+1, because that pistonheads article you pulled up has long ago been discredited even by pistonheads themselves, who also fired the person responsible for it according to rumor.

Welcome to last month.

this is my favorite quote from the above article:

"In reality they reckon it’ll do a low seven-thirty – maybe a 31 or 32 – whereas a 911 Turbo wearing far more trick rubber with Walter the wheelman at the controls, could ‘only’ manage 7min 40sec. Truth is the GTR is a good 10sec quicker round the ‘Ring, maybe a little bit more."

[Hans Delbruck]

Originally Posted by ruff

If what you claim is really true, then isn't the the GT-R the logical choice.

ruff-- you know a car choice isn't a logical one, if you're a car enthusiast. It's emotional. Why else would this thread be soooo long? Why else would people be fighting so much? If our decisions were based purely on logic and fact, we'd all agree and be driving Civics or Corollas or something that looks good to us and "gets us there," like the majority of people.

I don't know what anyone's trying to prove. You can't reason out a purchase like this. I just so happen to like the way BMW leather smells more than Audi and Mercedes, for example... Maybe it's based on past ownership, and feelings I had about BMWs at the time. Car purchases are totally personal and emotional..... and based on so many little nuances we each feel about different cars and maybe don't even realize it.

The GTR is a great car, but I simply don't want one, even if it is the best performance you can get for $70K. And believe me I am a huge fan of "bang for the buck" (having owned a C5 Z06 I bought brand new for $42K (0-60 in 4.2) and an EVO 8 currently)

I know you like Porsches, and there are a lot of "intangibles" about a new Porsche purchase that don't make logical sense either.....

rambling fwiw....