|
|
12-20-2007, 04:47 PM | #155 |
Banned
11
Rep 471
Posts |
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)... |
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 05:34 PM | #156 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
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? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 06:10 PM | #157 | |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Quote:
Nice try though! You really can't stand that the mighty 911TT is beaten, can you? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 06:13 PM | #158 | ||
Conspicuous consumption
99
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 06:50 PM | #159 | |
Banned
11
Rep 471
Posts |
Quote:
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... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 06:59 PM | #160 | |
Banned
11
Rep 471
Posts |
Quote:
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... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 07:23 PM | #161 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 07:25 PM | #162 |
Banned
11
Rep 471
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 07:40 PM | #163 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 08:14 PM | #164 | |||
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 12-21-2007 at 07:11 AM.. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
12-20-2007, 11:14 PM | #165 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:48 AM | #166 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
^^ 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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 10:36 AM | #167 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
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 10:56 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 11:42 AM | #168 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Once again, sorry for the delay...
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 11:59 AM | #169 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 12:10 PM | #170 | |
Conspicuous consumption
99
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Quote:
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: |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 12:20 PM | #171 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:04 PM | #172 | |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:14 PM | #173 | ||
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:17 PM | #174 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:41 PM | #175 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 01:42 PM | #176 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|