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....
 
Alpine HID
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-20-2007, 05:47 PM   #155
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

the dyno is bogus...can't be real
HP does not = T at 5250

I know how they rigged it...
use the given speeds/rpm to calculate the ratio...I did...
3rd 1.595 x 3.7 = 5.9
4th 1.248 x 3.7 = 4.62 (they used 4.66, close)
tire OD = 2.33'
circ 7.33'

it's works out to 5.475...NOT the 4.66 that they used...
no such ratio unless the car has a 3.5th gear
they measure wheel T and divide by the ratio...I've conversed with dynapack...
by doing this they have fudged the numbers by 17.5%...hmmmm, that's a good driveline loss factor...

all times are proffered by Nissan, Japanese journalists with connections, on Japanese tracks, control, etc.

let's wait for some independent times...
the car loaded weighs >4100 lbs (3850 + 160 driver + 100 fuel)
and that's assuming the 3850 is accurate
BMW was low by 100 lbs on the new M3
MB 350lbs on the C63...
I'm guessing curb weight will be close to 4000 lbs!!!!

keep in mind the TT997 manual weighs almost 500 lbs less, has 16% more T and ran ~7:50 w/PSC's
Excellence weighed one at 3377 (3477 auto)...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 06:34 PM   #156
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
the dyno is bogus...can't be real
HP does not = T at 5250

I know how they rigged it...
use the given speeds/rpm to calculate the ratio...I did...
3rd 1.595 x 3.7 = 5.9
4th 1.248 x 3.7 = 4.62 (they used 4.66, close)
tire OD = 2.33'
circ 7.33'

it's works out to 5.475...NOT the 4.66 that they used...
no such ratio unless the car has a 3.5th gear
they measure wheel T and divide by the ratio...I've conversed with dynapack...
by doing this they have fudged the numbers by 17.5%...hmmmm, that's a good driveline loss factor...

all times are proffered by Nissan, Japanese journalists with connections, on Japanese tracks, control, etc.

let's wait for some independent times...
the car loaded weighs >4100 lbs (3850 + 160 driver + 100 fuel)
and that's assuming the 3850 is accurate
BMW was low by 100 lbs on the new M3
MB 350lbs on the C63...
I'm guessing curb weight will be close to 4000 lbs!!!!

keep in mind the TT997 manual weighs almost 500 lbs less, has 16% more T and ran ~7:50 w/PSC's
Excellence weighed one at 3377 (3477 auto)...
o

So how much power do you think it's really making? Is it also possible for a manufacturer to get SAE certified hp base on actual hp or whp?
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 07:10 PM   #157
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
let's wait for some independent times...
the car loaded weighs >4100 lbs (3850 + 160 driver + 100 fuel)
and that's assuming the 3850 is accurate
BMW was low by 100 lbs on the new M3
MB 350lbs on the C63...
I'm guessing curb weight will be close to 4000 lbs!!!!

keep in mind the TT997 manual weighs almost 500 lbs less, has 16% more T and ran ~7:50 w/PSC's
Excellence weighed one at 3377 (3477 auto)...
We have them, Edmunds.com beat the Nissan times in 0-60 and matched 1/4th mile.

Nice try though! You really can't stand that the mighty 911TT is beaten, can you?
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 07:13 PM   #158
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
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 swamp2 View Post
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. It is just like a drag car getting a good drag strip time. hp rules even at the N'Ring.

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped...
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word?
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. .
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 07:50 PM   #159
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
o

So how much power do you think it's really making? Is it also possible for a manufacturer to get SAE certified hp base on actual hp or whp?
no...SAE has a very strict regime...it's why the Japanese mfgs have a hard time meeting them and have to re-rate their cars...
SAE HP is rated at the flywheel w/accesories...power steering, alternator, etc.

I'm sure it makes the 480HP/430 lb-ft, but at the CRANK, NOT at the wheels

Nissan themselves has said it only makes 473 SAE and will need to be tweeked to be rated 480 SAE in the states...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 07:59 PM   #160
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
We have them, Edmunds.com beat the Nissan times in 0-60 and matched 1/4th mile.

Nice try though! You really can't stand that the mighty 911TT is beaten, can you?

the edmunds times are bogus...no verification, protocol, or accepted methods...

C&D
R&T
sportAUTO
etc.

all have established protocols...

we will know the truth when across the counter cars are independently tested outside the control of nissan...

I have no vested interest in Porsche, I'm a BMW man...

the fact the 997TT is 500 lbs lighter, has 16% more torque, and ran ~7:49 to 7:54 by established and great drivers on PSC's, does not jive with nissans claims...

the 997TT also has LESS driveline loss

GTR
f-r driveshaft
r-f driveshaft
f diff
r diff
xfer case
4 1/2 axles...

997TT
r-f driveshaft
f diff
4 1/2 axles...

the r diff and xfer case are not required and built into the tranny...
they just stick a front shaft on it...

the f-r driveshaft is not required...

let's look at the physical facts...not unsubstantiated claims...
bogus dynos, etc.

someone please calculate the ratio, check me...
also....
HP at 5250 ~460+
T at 5250 ~428

someone please explain how this can be possible...

don't confuse objectivity with hate...it's engineering and physics...do the math...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 08:23 PM   #161
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
no...SAE has a very strict regime...it's why the Japanese mfgs have a hard time meeting them and have to re-rate their cars...
SAE HP is rated at the flywheel w/accesories...power steering, alternator, etc.

I'm sure it makes the 480HP/430 lb-ft, but at the CRANK, NOT at the wheels

Nissan themselves has said it only makes 473 SAE and will need to be tweeked to be rated 480 SAE in the states...
So it's not under-rated.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 08:25 PM   #162
ArtPE
Banned
 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 471
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
So it's not under-rated.
I don't think anyone ever said it was...

just that it's not over-rated, ie, 480/430 at the WHEELS...that's unrealistic...
ArtPE is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 08:40 PM   #163
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,793
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
...What we should do is team up, rather than compete. CarTest has its inherent strengths in its flexibility/customization and huge number of outputs. You have your strengths as well such as you ability to immediately know which variables and vehicle systemes and changes will have what effect and even how large those effects will be on drag performance. By the way your knowledge and abilities here far exceed mine. Quarter Jr has its strengths as well in that is seem to nail the all important trap result better than CarTest. Maybe at some point, with enough evidence, we can say with certainty which is the case for the GT-R under-rated or not. I really would enjoy working with you on this topic we are both passioniate about.
Team up?

Hey, a little spike of good will is always a good thing, but don't forget who we are. If you and I were in a room working on something for awhile, it wouldn't be long before the cops showed up, finding one of us on the floor and the other standing over the body holding the bloody hammer.

That said, a little collaboration never hurt, but I don't know where to start.

I think there's a problem with CarTech, probably hidden in one or more of those inputs. The only thing I could find in the results was that shortfall on the top end, but don't really have any ideas on how to check it out.

If you'd like to work on some timeslips, PM me. If you can get CarTech to closely match actual timeslips, some real progress can be made.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-20-2007, 09:14 PM   #164
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357
So it's not under-rated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
I don't think anyone ever said it was...

just that it's not over-rated, ie, 480/430 at the WHEELS...that's unrealistic...
Uhhh, have you checked the title of this thread. To sum it up for you, basically Swamp concludes that if the dyno says 482hp at the wheel that means it could translate to 550hp or more to the crank. Hence the under-rating and dishonesty of Nissan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp
My post directly following his was:

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. It is just like a drag car getting a good drag strip time. hp rules even at the N'Ring.

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped...
Now in Swamps defense and everyone else that agrees with him, there's a huge probability that this is true and there are several comparable data that would suggest that it is the case of under-rating. I personally don't come to any conclusion until there are actual undeniable facts that's presented and shown, anything less is just simply speculations or guesses at best. Which there's nothing wrong with that as long as you present it as such. For example the title of this thread should be change to "GTR might be under-rating" instead of "GTR massively under-rated". The title simply suggest a foregone conclusion base on one dyno-test and the unbelievable performance figures that it has recorded so far. JMHO.

Last edited by gbb357; 12-21-2007 at 08:11 AM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 12:14 AM   #165
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,576
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
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. It is just like a drag car getting a good drag strip time. hp rules even at the N'Ring.

Talk about dishonest and over-hyped...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...topanel..2 .*


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff
Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it right now given the evidence at hand. .
Keep on posting ruff, it is getting really old. You have nothing new nor convincing to say and that is pretty clear. This Edmunds article is already old news and a repost at that. The performance numbers released by Edmunds don't either particulary confirm nor deny anything about the possible under-rating by Nissan. They only prove that one magazine (with "protocols" that according to Art are a bit sketchy/uncertain) have obtained some amazing performance numbers from the car. The article did get me thinking and doubting myself a bit but that's perfectly OK. DCT helps the car get some good numbers and its advanced traction control system probably contributes to it's phenomenal 0-60 time. The technology evidence goes a bit against the under-rating theory but the times themselves actually continue to support the theory. Come on a trap of 120+ with more weight and more drivetrain loss than the 997TT?

If you think there is no evidence whatsoever for an under-rating you have a complete lack of healthy skepticism. The same is true if you call me completely and certainly wrong (which is seems you are doing, over and over and over...). Since you are a man of such impeccible reason and lack of bias you should clearly have the sense to call it like it is, THE JURY IS STILL OUT. If you feel otherwise post your clear argument with some bloody evidence and time as well will be the judge of your argument. If you are unwilling to do so, I'd politely say simply get the h#$$ off my back. You are not contributing with this style and lack of content. It is just like an annoying little youngster continually poking someone with their finger, while keeping completely silent.

When and if I have to admit I am wrong, no matter when it happens, I will do it in in big bold letters, as its own topic, right here on the forum for all to see. Then you can revel in that as long as you like. PLEASE re-read the Sagan quote about scientists changing their minds. Truth >> ego.

Note my edit above of your selective quotation which takes my ultimate stance completely out of context. Nice....not.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:48 AM   #166
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

^^ How about the evidence of SAE certification. Would that suffice? And if the "the jury is still out" as you say and agree with, don't you think that the title of this thread is wrong.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 11:36 AM   #167
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
If you and I were in a room working on something for awhile, it wouldn't be long before the cops showed up, finding one of us on the floor and the other standing over the body holding the bloody hammer.
That's some vivid imagery you put out there Bruce; I am glad I got busy and stepped aside from this slugging match early on.

Seriously though, I don't think such debates would get this heated/personal in real life. There is a lot of room for misunderstanding and not listening on the internet, which is easier to mediate in person.

I think both you and Swamp bring solid insights to the forum. You seem to have tons of hands-on experience and provide useful empirical information. Swamp seems to have more of a theoretical perspective. The drawback of the empirical approach is that it doesn't exactly allow one to isolate cause-effect relationships. Models require exactly that by definition, but in the absence of an empirical component, they don't mean jack as the game can turn into garbage in garbage out real quickly. Ultimately, dialog between the empirical and theoretical dimensions results in outcomes which are both descriptive and predictive. (I'm not saying you don't understand the theory behind what you observe, or that Swamp doesn't have a grasp on reality or anything).

So, you guys should get together and have beers--but make sure there aren't any hammers around.

Last edited by lucid; 12-21-2007 at 11:56 AM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 12:42 PM   #168
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,793
iTrader: (0)

Once again, sorry for the delay...

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Bruce,

I take it you have read the times that the GTR has achieved with Edmunds, 0-60mph in 3.3s and a 1/4mile in 11.6s 120mph are both times which surely aren't common place with cars that have 480ps and weigh over 3800lbs.

I don't know anything like the amount both you and swamp do but I have had some experience with the TVR Cerbera 4.2v8 and it was a car which seemed to hit above it's weight compared to other compatible machines but it's achievement in this don't even come close to matching the GTR in respect to this.

P.S.

The times it has been producing around the Suzkuka track in many ways is even more incredible than it's acceleration as the list of cars it's quicker than are more track based than even it's meant for.

Either this is a case of Japanese propaganda at it's extreme or dare I say it again, one of the most advanced and complete cars currently available.
My one experience with a TVR was quite a number of years ago, and I don't even remember the model. It was a straight six, if memory serves, and the acceleration was pretty much chiropractic. It also seemed to have more engine than chassis, which only made it more fun.

However, it's a completely different beast than the GT-R. The GT-R is all about astounding competence, and my guess is that overall it'll be less fun to throw around than the TVR.

The Edmunds numbers are spectacular, but also seem to be in very good agreement with what Nissan says, and if you look at the (admittedly incomplete) weather specs for the test, those conditions seem to be fairly close to the old SEA (gross) Standard Day specs, which means the car was getting a free 5% bump in power compared to the current SAE Net Specs.

Their Porsche Turbo was also run under similar "dense" weather conditions, and though it was down on mph compared to the GT-R, it also is hampered in that regard because of the five speed torque convertor gearbox. In fact, the Car & Driver test of the Porsche Tiptronic showed 122 mph, which for me was a bit of an anomaly. I'm betting the car had a nice cooldown and that was a first pass with everything no more than warm to the touch.

Back on the GT-R, history shows us that Japan Automotive, Inc. is very careful in making sure the cars they provide are right up to the top of the spec, and although subsequent production cars may or may not be slower, they will *not* be faster.

As an example of "top of the spec", you can be quite sure that if max boost is 10 psi, with an allowable range of 9.5 to 10.5, the early test mules will be at 10.5. Bet on it.

One way that Nissan might hedge a little on the current witnessed SAE Certified test runs is to provide an engine that is closer to the 9.5 allowed max boost level rather than the specified 10. I'm making this up, you understand, because the SAE may not in fact allow that, but that would give them an approximate 2% fudge factor against the rating.

The cars are also blowing everything away on the short tracks (where power to weight is less important) because of the total awd, DSG, well-balanced package.

Yeah, the GT-R is the real thing, mostly because as I've mentioned before, it pretty well has to be, or Both Nissan and Japan Automotive Inc. lose face - and that can't be allowed.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 12:59 PM   #169
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,576
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Team up?

Hey, a little spike of good will is always a good thing, but don't forget who we are. If you and I were in a room working on something for awhile, it wouldn't be long before the cops showed up, finding one of us on the floor and the other standing over the body holding the bloody hammer.

That said, a little collaboration never hurt, but I don't know where to start.

I think there's a problem with CarTech, probably hidden in one or more of those inputs. The only thing I could find in the results was that shortfall on the top end, but don't really have any ideas on how to check it out.

If you'd like to work on some timeslips, PM me. If you can get CarTech to closely match actual timeslips, some real progress can be made.

Bruce
I agree with lucid, Bruce. It is quite a bit easier to get into disagreements online where it appears there is miles of difference between the folks when in fact it is more like feet. This has definitely happened to us. lucids identification of our different stlyes and backgrounds certainly contributes to this as well. I have already explored some options to improve the trap speeds with CarTest as it seems this is it's only recognizeable weakness. I am still quite happy with its performance for most 0-X mph times. I will PM you.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 01:10 PM   #170
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
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 swamp2 View Post
Keep on posting ruff, it is getting really old. You have nothing new nor convincing to say and that is pretty clear. This Edmunds article is already old news and a repost at that. The performance numbers released by Edmunds don't either particulary confirm nor deny anything about the possible under-rating by Nissan. They only prove that one magazine (with "protocols" that according to Art are a bit sketchy/uncertain) have obtained some amazing performance numbers from the car. The article did get me thinking and doubting myself a bit but that's perfectly OK. DCT helps the car get some good numbers and its advanced traction control system probably contributes to it's phenomenal 0-60 time. The technology evidence goes a bit against the under-rating theory but the times themselves actually continue to support the theory. Come on a trap of 120+ with more weight and more drivetrain loss than the 997TT?

If you think there is no evidence whatsoever for an under-rating you have a complete lack of healthy skepticism. The same is true if you call me completely and certainly wrong (which is seems you are doing, over and over and over...). Since you are a man of such impeccible reason and lack of bias you should clearly have the sense to call it like it is, THE JURY IS STILL OUT. If you feel otherwise post your clear argument with some bloody evidence and time as well will be the judge of your argument. If you are unwilling to do so, I'd politely say simply get the h#$$ off my back. You are not contributing with this style and lack of content. It is just like an annoying little youngster continually poking someone with their finger, while keeping completely silent.

When and if I have to admit I am wrong, no matter when it happens, I will do it in in big bold letters, as its own topic, right here on the forum for all to see. Then you can revel in that as long as you like. PLEASE re-read the Sagan quote about scientists changing their minds. Truth >> ego.

Note my edit above of your selective quotation which takes my ultimate stance completely out of context. Nice....not.
Swamp,
Look at your famous quote below, is this evidence I can read your posts? Oh ya, I forgot, you could car less about other people's so called evidence, unless of course it fits into your M3 fantasy world and bolsters your case. So why should anyone even attempt to show you any facts that counter this fantasy world, when it is crystal clear that your position will never change no matter what the evidence shows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. .
You believing you are never ever wrong and thus the the final say on automotive performance numbers, that in many cases do not even exist yet, is what is really getting old, Swamp. You should take Sagans advice that truth >> than ego because you are clearly it's antithesis:

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. .
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 01:20 PM   #171
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,576
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
^^ How about the evidence of SAE certification. Would that suffice? And if the "the jury is still out" as you say and agree with, don't you think that the title of this thread is wrong.
SAE certification would be very solid evidence, although not quite incontrovertible. We have probably read the same article that says Nissan is preparig for SAE hp certification. However, the headline of the article and te quote inside and not equivalent. The article says Nissan officials said we we should expect 480 hp SAE but the quote they provide says on that they are "targeting 480 hp by US testing testing standards". Only time will tell.

Just as Bruce pointed out above there are subtle ways left to fudge things. Controlling boost is such an easy thing to do on the assembly line (even before or after assembly) and Nissan could adjust this at any time. I'd say the only evidence that would be absolutely 100% we won't get. That would be to SAE test an engine and then mount that same engine in a car and give it a battery of performance tests. Again - absolutely not going to happen.

Given that the 100% certainly test is not going to happen what I require to be certain is simply multiple sources of evidence that are consistent (not exact but consistent) be they comparisons with other vehicles, simulations, dyno tests, SAE certification etc.

Lastly, if you could and would read, I have admitted approximately 14.8 million times in this very thread that its title and word choice was a bit premature and aggressive. That does not mean there is no evidence to support the claim. Please, please, please don't make me repeat this over and over ad nauseum.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:04 PM   #172
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
someone please explain how this can be possible...

don't confuse objectivity with hate...it's engineering and physics...do the math...
Objectivity means looking at all the evidence. The evidence out there supports the GT-R being faster than the 911TT. To whit we have:

1) Nissan having as a stated design goal to be faster than the 911TT at the N'ring.

2) Hundreds no thousands of witnessed test laps of the GT-R with a 911TT.

3) A fully data logged and video recording of the GT-R going around the N'ring faster than a 911TT with a race driver N'ring specialist in its drivers seat.

4) SportAuto editor in 1 day of GT-R testing going faster than he ever had around N'ring in a 911TT.

5) Independent documented track times at 3 other racing circuits with the GT-R being faster.

The how this is possible will come out later, right now the evidence is overwhelming that the GT-R does indeed beat the 911TT in terms of getting around a road racing circuit.
sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:14 PM   #173
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp
Lastly, if you could and would read, I have admitted approximately 14.8 million times in this very thread that its title and word choice was a bit premature and aggressive. That does not mean there is no evidence to support the claim. Please, please, please don't make me repeat this over and over ad nauseum.
So change it then. For the 20 million times, your evidence does not and has not proven anything, again It is still a speculation or as you would call it your claim. Don't make any of us repeat this over and over again. Until you have proven it undeniably, your claim is wrong therefore the title is wrong, change it. BTW, SAE regulations are very strict and must have a independent witness during the test. I understand that they can regulate the boost before the test, but your talking about dropping the power to at least 80hp, i don't think 1psi of adjustment would do that. And also, Art is very convinced that the dyno is bogus as well, and he thinks that the actual power is 480 from the crank.

Quote:
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[5] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:17 PM   #174
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,576
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Swamp,
Look at your famous quote below, is this evidence I can read your posts? Oh ya, I forgot, you could car less about other people's so called evidence, unless of course it fits into your M3 fantasy world and bolsters your case. So why should anyone even attempt to show you any facts that counter this fantasy world, when it is crystal clear that your position will never change no matter what the evidence shows?



You believing you are never ever wrong and thus the the final say on automotive performance numbers, that in many cases do not even exist yet, is what is really getting old, Swamp. You should take Sagans advice that truth >> than ego because you are clearly it's antithesis:
Incorrect on almost all fronts ruff. The only thing we have here is our words and the way those words form a history and a reputation. I have been pointed out and proven wrong by multiple members in the past and my reply is typically short, a thanks/sorry and the incident passes with no drama nor fan fare. It could be the same here again (at some point in the future) except for your seeming obsession this time around.

Despite multiple clarifications, use of bold oversized text, repeating myself over and over you continue to quote me in isolation, in a way that so obviously misrepresents both my past behavior and my clearly stated position this time around. Why the obsession? Seems clear to me, when you put me in the position of the blind fanboy with M3 delusions of grandeur it gives you comfort in your own egotistical opinion of yourself as THE "Mr. Objectivity" here.

Keep on misquoting, misrepresenting as well as misunderstanding me. Your false beliefs of my opinions on the M3 and on the M3 "vs." the GT-R are simply in 100% contradiction with my stated position (again stated over and over and over). I hope these things give you some comfort and security because all they do otherwise is detract for your reputation and your desired position/status.

My reply to your endless future replies to this will simply be to reread my post #165 over and over again until you get it and accept it.

Oh and having your own position/argument/evidence on this topic wouldn't be a bad idea either (suggested previously as well...). Otherwise you simply have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines poking me like the silent little kid mentioned above. It is time to take a stand on the actual point of discussion rather than endlessly obsessing and talking about the discussion itself and an contributor of content to the discussion. Ruff, Mr. Meta-discussion is more like it.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:41 PM   #175
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE
the dyno is bogus...can't be real
HP does not = T at 5250

I know how they rigged it...
use the given speeds/rpm to calculate the ratio...I did...
3rd 1.595 x 3.7 = 5.9
4th 1.248 x 3.7 = 4.62 (they used 4.66, close)
tire OD = 2.33'
circ 7.33'

it's works out to 5.475...NOT the 4.66 that they used...
no such ratio unless the car has a 3.5th gear
they measure wheel T and divide by the ratio...I've conversed with dynapack...
by doing this they have fudged the numbers by 17.5%...hmmmm, that's a good driveline loss factor...

all times are proffered by Nissan, Japanese journalists with connections, on Japanese tracks, control, etc.
no...SAE has a very strict regime...it's why the Japanese mfgs have a hard time meeting them and have to re-rate their cars...
SAE HP is rated at the flywheel w/accesories...power steering, alternator, etc.

I'm sure it makes the 480HP/430 lb-ft, but at the CRANK, NOT at the wheels

Nissan themselves has said it only makes 473 SAE and will need to be tweeked to be rated 480 SAE in the states...
Let's just say they did rigged it, i wonder if they did it by using another car or simply adjusted the boost on the GTR.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-21-2007, 02:42 PM   #176
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,576
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
So change it then. For the 20 million times, you're evidence does not and has not proven anything, again It is still a speculation or as you would call it a claim. Don't make any of us repeat this over and over again. Until you have proven it undeniably, your claim is wrong therefore the title is wrong, change it. BTW, SAE regulations are very strict and must have a independent witness during the test. I understand that they can regulate the boost before the test, but your talking about dropping the power to at least 80hp, i don't think 1psi of adjustment would do that.
Perhaps you do not understand evidence vs. proof? Let's revisit the evidence. This all been beat to death but you seem to have missed it, typical. Each piece of evidence does have mitigating factors as well which I will point out. Again these mitigating factors are what makes this really a matter of science and something that requires an investigative approach and requires mutiple, consistent pieces of evidence to make any final calls.
  • The N'ring laptimes on a track absolutely dominated by power to weight ratio. Mitigating factors include an ace driver, DCT, likely VERY sticky UHP tires similar to a MPSC or MPSC+.
  • The dyno test of the GT-R. Mitigating factors include accounting for tire loss, the likely dynapack non-conservatism, other observed inconsistencies in the dyno results.
  • Comparisons with the 997TT performance figures. This car has more torque and weighs quite a bit less than the GT-R and very likely has less drivetrain losses. There is dyno evidence and simulation evidence as well for the 997TT being under-rated. Mitigating factors again include the DCT.
  • Simulation results indicate an under-rating. Both mine and Bruce's in fact since his system gets reasonable predictions for the cars time but misses all the hp lost in the car's complex drivetrain.
  • History: Nissan is well known for under-rating Skylines/GT-Rs in the past.

There is probably more evidence as well but these were just quickly from memory.

I guess you also are not aware that although you can change the content of a post by editing, you can not change a posts title? I'm in favor of letting the record stand anyway even if the title was aggressive. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, it is that simple.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
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 01:29 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