the truth is revealed "Nissan is Lying"

[RedGT3]

GTR vs C6 ZO6 street race.

[BMW-videos.com]

Originally Posted by footie

693hp, this keeps getting better and better.

Why not except that Nissan have built a car which handles much, much better than a Z06, GT2, Ferrari 430 Scud, etc, etc.

3.8L Bi-turbo = 693hp. (182.3hp per Litre) pretty impressive for a Japanese car which we all know will be every bit as reliable as any other.

P.S.
With that output per litre would you not think there would be quite a lot of lag, certainly a lot more than has ever been report in any tests, in fact I can't remember turbo lag being mentioned that much at all.

Actually yes, 3.8l bi-turbo at 693 RELIABLE hp is impressive. If that's the case of course, car only needs to lap once for the time. Do high boost setups make a lot of turbo lag? It's a good point indeed.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

...But I believe all these tests to be retarded Nissan ploys with Japanese(Nissan) supplied cars and it pisses me off.

Y'know, you never responded the last time I asked, but is the GT-R tested in the current Car & Driver also a ringer? It ran the quarter mile at 111 mph, which computes to around 430 HP, and was definitely a sick puppy, powerwise. Yet it lapped a race track a bit quicker than a Z06.

Is this down-on-power car yet another retarded Nissan ploy, and does the fact that it still beat the Vette mean it's just another retarded Nissan ploy, this time in terms of suspension and tires?

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

Look at this, http://ls1tech.com/forums/showpost.p...5&postcount=72 . The nissan that ran a 7:29 has a purported 693HP, and there's no doubt in my mind the tested GTR's have VERY SIMILAR POWER, and with how many other non-production tid bits? Either way even if it did have 693HP and some slight mods, you can give Nissan credit for making a capable car.. but don't BS me in trying to tell me that these cars are stock,non-altered vehicles.

Gee, it says 693 HP right there, so it must be true.

Nissan says it was a stocker, and that they were disappointed in the initial 7:38 numbers with another stocker, so they came back.

In regard to power, how do you account for the fact that nearly all of the tested cars tend to get outrun from a roll by Porsche Turbos and Z06s, starting with that initial test we saw by Edmunds? Yet anytime we see a track comparison, the GT-R tends to rule.

Maybe you can answer this time?

Credibility time, guy.

Bruce

[BMW-videos.com]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Y'know, you never responded the last time I asked, but is the GT-R tested in the current Car & Driver also a ringer? It ran the quarter mile at 111 mph, which computes to around 430 HP, and was definitely a sick puppy, powerwise. Yet it lapped a race track a bit quicker than a Z06.

Is this down-on-power car yet another retarded Nissan ploy, and does the fact that it still beat the Vette mean it's just another retarded Nissan ploy, this time in terms of suspension and tires?



Gee, it says 693 HP right there, so it must be true.

Nissan says it was a stocker, and that they were disappointed in the initial 7:38 numbers with another stocker, so they came back.

In regard to power, how do you account for the fact that nearly all of the tested cars tend to get outrun from a roll by Porsche Turbos and Z06s, starting with that initial test we saw by Edmunds? Yet anytime we see a track comparison, the GT-R tends to rule.

Maybe you can answer this time?

Credibility time, guy.

Bruce

Oh gee, Nissan claims the car was stock and ran 7:29 IT MUST BE TRUE!

With car and driver I haven't bothered to even read it yet. I can tell you if indeed the GTR lapped faster, it must have been extremely MARGINAL at best. To that I can agree with you on the fact that the GTR is most certainly more consistent as a car due to all of its electronic aids and its transmission. On the other hand the Vette requires an experienced driver but even more, GOOD TIRES. If indeed the GTR won on the track against the z06, and it was underpowered as you say then i'd like to see a race with equal tires and i'm sure the results will be even closer.

I don't recall edmunds testing the GTR against other cars directly on a roll.

Sure the GTR is a nice car, but since you're credible on these forums, as you've professed to me before i'd also like to ask you a question. Why all these discrepancies in power and performance in all the GTR tests?


7:50 --- 157.79 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 480 PS/1750 kg, Horst von Saurma (sport auto 12/07)

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by BMW-videos.com

...Sure the GTR is a nice car, but since you're credible on these forums, as you've professed to me before i'd also like to ask you a question. Why all these discrepancies in power and performance in all the GTR tests?

7:50 --- 157.79 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, 480 PS/1750 kg, Horst von Saurma (sport auto 12/07)

As I mentioned in previous correspondence with you and others, this bothers me a lot. Either there are some ringers present (likely) or Nissan has trouble with the manufacturing process.

Either way, if you put down your money you should be confident in what you're going to get. Will it be a 600 HP ubermachine, or a 480 HP ultra-high performance car that is only an ubermachine on track - or even worse, a 430 HP pretty fast machine?

Time will tell, I expect. Most likely, it'll be 480 HP cars that deliver everything promised, but this tremendous range in performance between test cars is very troubling.

Lastly, were the Nurburgring cars ringers or not? Nissan says not, and I tend to believe them because they have so much to lose if they're found out.

But still...7:29?

Time will tell.

Bruce

[BMW-videos.com]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As I mentioned in previous correspondence with you and others, this bothers me a lot. Either there are some ringers present (likely) or Nissan has trouble with the manufacturing process.

Either way, if you put down your money you should be confident in what you're going to get. Will it be a 600 HP ubermachine, or a 480 HP ultra-high performance car that is only an ubermachine on track - or even worse, a 430 HP pretty fast machine?

Time will tell, I expect. Most likely, it'll be 480 HP cars that deliver everything promised, but this tremendous range in performance between test cars is very troubling.

Lastly, were the Nurburgring cars ringers or not? Nissan says not, and I tend to believe them because they have so much to lose if they're found out.

But still...7:29?

Time will tell.

Bruce

I sagree with much of what you said above, like you said time will tell. Either way i'll get a ride and hopefully a drive in it, got a brother that's opting for one.

[footie]

With this much power per litre the lag would be very noticeable, one example I remember was the EVO FQ400, OK it had 200hp per litre but the lag was awful. Maybe with more advancement in technology it will have improved but not to the level where someone wouldn't have said some pretty damning words about it.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As I mentioned in previous correspondence with you and others, this bothers me a lot. Either there are some ringers present (likely) or Nissan has trouble with the manufacturing process.

Either way, if you put down your money you should be confident in what you're going to get. Will it be a 600 HP ubermachine, or a 480 HP ultra-high performance car that is only an ubermachine on track - or even worse, a 430 HP pretty fast machine?

Time will tell, I expect. Most likely, it'll be 480 HP cars that deliver everything promised, but this tremendous range in performance between test cars is very troubling.

Lastly, were the Nurburgring cars ringers or not? Nissan says not, and I tend to believe them because they have so much to lose if they're found out.

But still...7:29?

Time will tell.

Bruce

While I believe the GTR is a nice car, the 7:29 number is insane. I wonder how many laps they had to do to get that.

I believe the Sportauto time was 7:50 or 7:55, their chief engineer got 7:44 and the manufacture's estimate is 7:35....

If the car did have <500 hp it wouln't make any sense it would be faster than say a GT3.

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

[BMW-videos.com]

Truthfully i'm a ferrari, General Motors fan. Yet I also find the ZR1 time to be a little fast, outpacing a carrera GT, Zonda F, Koenigsegg CCR just seems like a little much. Maybe back when carrera , zonda, koensigg were tested ultimate lap time just wasn't the goal. Manufacturers most likely were only in search of good lap times not necessarily THE BEST, they didn't sit there like Nissan milking seconds by the week. Now a days it's all about who's got the fastest nring time. I'm sure the new magnetic ride suspension in the ZR1 can be adjusted and might be more fantastic then we know but it still is around 170hp and 700 pounds short of a CCX?

The name of the ride control system is Magnetic Selective Ride Control (MSRC). MSRC is provided by Delphi. The system uses two modes of control: Tour and Sport.

The system offers standing start launch modifications. When launching the ZR1 from a standing start, the shocks are completely softened on launch and stiffened on rebound. The softened shocks on launch aid the ZR1 by allowing the center of gravity to shift. The ride control standing launch modifications are designed to minimize bounce.

[addy85]

Originally Posted by fll335

GTR vs C6 ZO6 street race.

wow, nice find

[BMW-videos.com]

Originally Posted by addy85

wow, nice find

heh that's the older one, I'm hoping those two brothers make another video

[BMW-videos.com]

random stuff to feed the flames, because now its just good fun

http://picsorban.com/upload/gtrticle.jpg
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7...ngtr693my0.jpg


from Corvette forum: Suaveat69

decent responses on this thread.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...&highlight=gtr

[DiscoZ]

This thread = Sour grapes personnified.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Vindicated. (For those of you that don't remember, I am the fellow that came out here very early and very strong with the statement that the car simply must be under-rated (or a variety of other similar/weaker hypotheses)

Sure it is cool that you get more than advertised. Nonetheless a slimy and dishonest maneuver by Nissan.

Bruce A: How will this car meet US SAE specs again? Please remind me .

Swamp, I'm bringing this up again because I got to thinkin' after reading the R & T four-track comparision test - and wondering where in the power spectrum their particular GT-R would be.

Remember that Car & Driver test where they got the Nissan to trap at 124 mph in the quarter mile? (This was followed by two subsequent tests where another sample went 115 or so, and then the low-point 111 mph wounded car.)

Well, the 124 mph figure is bogus. I went back to their test sheet, and apparently they corrected their trap speed by a factor of 1.041103, and the ET by .96084. As you are aware, they correct for a Car & Driver standard day, and since they tested out at Reno (at 4200 feet), they apparently applied those correction factors to the actual observed figures.

BRAAAP! WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!

The GT-R can altitude-compensate with turbo boost.

Combine that with the fact that the test conditions were at 44 degrees, and the revised quarter mile trap speed ought to be around 118 mph. That still computes to something over 520 HP, but it's a far cry from 600 or so.

Furthermore, nobody knows how much difference the sophisticated launch control, any-wheels-you-need power transmission and Nissan's version of the DSG/DCT/DKG make. I personally believe that even though there's a weight penalty, the M3 DCT will show up as being both quicker and faster than the standard six-speed in the quarter mile. Since the six-speed cars tested so far tend to show at least as-advertised figures (and some have shown calculated power to be in the 430-450 HP range), the DCT cars will show up as being definitely underrated. As much as the Nissan? Don't know, but it'll be significant.

Bruce

Edit: PS - I didn't say "automatic", because that would jack you up on something completely beside the point in this context. I thunk about it, though.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp, I'm bringing this up again because I got to thinkin' after reading the R & T four-track comparision test - and wondering where in the power spectrum their particular GT-R would be.

Remember that Car & Driver test where they got the Nissan to trap at 124 mph in the quarter mile? (This was followed by two subsequent tests where another sample went 115 or so, and then the low-point 111 mph wounded car.)

Well, the 124 mph figure is bogus. I went back to their test sheet, and apparently they corrected their trap speed by a factor of 1.041103, and the ET by .96084. As you are aware, they correct for a Car & Driver standard day, and since they tested out at Reno (at 4200 feet), they apparently applied those correction factors to the actual observed figures.

BRAAAP! WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!

The GT-R can altitude-compensate with turbo boost.

Combine that with the fact that the test conditions were at 44 degrees, and the revised quarter mile trap speed ought to be around 118 mph. That still computes to something over 520 HP, but it's a far cry from 600 or so.

Furthermore, nobody knows how much difference the sophisticated launch control, any-wheels-you-need power transmission and Nissan's version of the DSG/DCT/DKG make. I personally believe that even though there's a weight penalty, the M3 DCT will show up as being both quicker and faster than the standard six-speed in the quarter mile. Since the six-speed cars tested so far tend to show at least as-advertised figures (and some have shown calculated power to be in the 430-450 HP range), the DCT cars will show up as being definitely underrated. As much as the Nissan? Don't know, but it'll be significant.

Bruce

Edit: PS - I didn't say "automatic", because that would jack you up on something completely beside the point in this context. I thunk about it, though.

Nice find and nice detective work! You should write a letter to the editor for sure.

Good use of appropriate terminology as well. I might be done complaining about other transmission taxonomy (well at least your choice). Cheers.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Well, the 124 mph figure is bogus. I went back to their test sheet, and apparently they corrected their trap speed by a factor of 1.041103, and the ET by .96084. As you are aware, they correct for a Car & Driver standard day, and since they tested out at Reno (at 4200 feet), they apparently applied those correction factors to the actual observed figures.

BRAAAP! WRONG! THANK YOU FOR PLAYING!

Thanks! Great observation. 124 mph on a 3800 pound car means 600 hp.