Nissan GT-R might not be as under-rated as we all had suspected:

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Swamp you're really reaching here. You want to see the performance numbers for every car that is dynoed for proof that it is accurate, are you kidding me. With that logic then, why would you believe the other dyno test that you originally posted if it did'nt have any performance numbers either. And both cars are AWD, why should the GTR have a much higher drivetrain loss? With these figures, the GTR is losing about 17%, that sounds reasonble to me. We're not talking about performance figures right now, simply the dyno test. Again, why would you believe the other dyno test that you concluded to be "massively under-rated" and not believe this one. When this one not only has two dyno test but also has another car with almost identical power to compare with.

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but I have long ago moved away from my opinion that GT-R is "massively under-rated". I have made this crystal clear in about 30 posts already. Just stop with that.

The GT-R should have a higher drivetrain loss from its extra fore-aft axle system. Front engine, rear transmission WITH extra shaft from rear transaxle to front diff! This is very different than the 997TT system.

If you can read you will note I never in ANY WAY implied that I don't believe this dyno test. I am simply saying this is only one small and fairly insufficient piece of data.

Dyno tests get you wheel or hub power torque ONLY, power at the wheels as well as crank figures are then CALCULATED with a good of a GUESS as possible as to the total loss. What don't you get about that?

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this but I have long ago moved away from my opinion that GT-R is "massively under-rated". I have made this crystal clear in about 30 posts already. Just stop with that.

The GT-R should have a higher drivetrain loss from its extra fore-aft axle system. Front engine, rear transmission WITH extra shaft from rear transaxle to front diff! This is very different than the 997TT system.

If you can read you will note I never in ANY WAY implied that I don't believe this dyno test. I am simply saying this is only one small and fairly insufficient piece of data.

Dyno tests get you wheel or hub power torque ONLY, power at the wheels as well as crank figures are then CALCULATED with a good of a GUESS as possible as to the total loss. What don't you get about that?

Again, this "insufficient piece of data" is no different than the one you posted that is also insufficient and yet you believe and 100% support the one you posted. Why is that?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by jaiman

So in order to prove the car is not under-rated one would need to Dyno a 911tt and GT-R on the same day, same dyno, then run 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, 0-150-0, and the N-ring using those same cars. Even then if the GT-R showed equivalent dyno numbers to the 911 and put up the better performance numbers it still wouldn't convince you that the "evidence for an under-rating" was you misinterpreting data.

Sure, that would do it for me, simple isn't it? Well everything except the Ring time...

If these two particular cars were tested both on the strip and at the track and the GT-R outperformed the 997TT I would be convinced and I would then say that a under-rating is very unlikely and if present no more than ~10 or so hp and ft lb. This would also improve my opinions of the GT-Rs chassis, suspension, drivetrain and traction control system (which by the way is already a very high opinion!).

By the way this is more of a case of lack of data rather than misinterpreting data. As more and more evidence become available my theories adjust. It is called a scientific approach, combined with a healthy dose of skepticism. The cars N'Ring time is still an outlier. Recall the good discussion and analysis (by many) on the regression thread here. Specifically on the Ring lap time I still stick to my basic contentions there. Perhaps a small update is in order. IMO one or more of the following is the case for the 7:38 lap time:

1. They have really reinvented the sports car and bested everyone by a significant margin. Maybe it could be some combination of their (AWD system, dual clutch, traction control) systems.
2. That car was under rated in term of power
3. That car was under rated in terms of weight (claimed>actual)
4. That cars Bridgestone tires were a track/competition style tire that was still DOT legal. The tires are likely equivalent to a MPSC or better.
5. The driver was so darn elite that he was responsible for majority of the outlier nature of the lap time.

Do recall Sportauto with Horst at the wheel only achieved a 7:53 time.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Again, this "insufficient piece of data" is no different than the one you posted that is also insufficient and yet you believe and 100% support the one you posted. Why is that?

When manufacturers specification, field tests (both performance and weight), dyno tests and simulations all agree fairly closely I call this an overwhleming concurence of the evidence. When you have this then you have a very stong case/theory that the manufacturers specs are all honest.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

When manufacturers specification, field tests (both performance and weight), dyno tests and simulations all agree fairly closely I call this an overwhleming concurence of the evidence. When you have this then you have a very stong case/theory that the manufacturers specs are all honest.

C'mon now, we know how simulations are not really exact science. Just because your simulations and the current available data conveniently supports your personal opinion of the GTR does'nt mean it is correct or valid. I'll say it again, the dyno test that you've posted does not have any performance figures from the same car that it was tested just like this one. So how do you know if that particular car had been modified and can actually put up better performance numbers?

[BMW335icDDS]

Originally Posted by devo

I think that I speak from some experience as I have owned three 997s (2) 997S's and a 997tt. I am also getting a GT-R in June, so I believe that I would consider myself a realist. The gearbox is part of the car, but without it, the GT-R's engine would not so easily beat the 997tt's engine. That is what this thread is essentially about.

And, your last statement is absolutely false. The GT-R will not beat the 997tt in every discipline. The most important every day performance benchmark on the street is roll on/in gear acceleration. The GT-R will simply get spanked there everytime by the 911. 3495 lbs. and more torque Porsche vs. 3873 +/- lbs. GT-R.

Sorry, I must disagree. I have a 997 Carrera S, am on wait list for a GT-R as well. I am not trying to be biased. Every review, including the infamous autocar one shows that the GT-R, under real world conditions like you say, will beat the 911 TT in a drag race. The GT-R has all the launch aids, while you try nailing the 911 TT from 0-60 in the 3.5 second group each time. I'm sure you cant, and probably would get around there 1 out of 10 times, meanwhile destroying your clutch. The GT-R can do it EVERY time easily.

[devo]

Originally Posted by BMW335icDDS

Sorry, I must disagree. I have a 997 Carrera S, am on wait list for a GT-R as well. I am not trying to be biased. Every review, including the infamous autocar one shows that the GT-R, under real world conditions like you say, will beat the 911 TT in a drag race. The GT-R has all the launch aids, while you try nailing the 911 TT from 0-60 in the 3.5 second group each time. I'm sure you cant, and probably would get around there 1 out of 10 times, meanwhile destroying your clutch. The GT-R can do it EVERY time easily.

I agree with much of what you are saying. But, are you just plain ignoring what I am saying regarding roll on/in-gear runs?

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Nissan GT-R and Porsche 911 Turbo dyno results:

that shows it's not how much HP you have it's how well you put it to the ground

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

C'mon now, we know how simulations are not really exact science. Just because your simulations and the current available data conveniently supports your personal opinion of the GTR does'nt mean it is correct or valid. I'll say it again, the dyno test that you've posted does not have any performance figures from the same car that it was tested just like this one. So how do you know if that particular car had been modified and can actually put up better performance numbers?

You'll never get it right, your own biases stiffle your objectivity. It is all backwards ^ and you do not understand my thought process one bit. There is a body of evidence and I already mentioned what is in that body, it is pretty diverse. From the evidence I have formed a theory, it is not an opinion, it is a theory based on the evidence. I suppose you could call it an opinion but that it is not so much a "personal" thing. I have definitely revised my theory and choice of words over time.

As far as the other dynos what is consistent is those results with some of the best observed performance figures for the car.

[chicagobimmerboy]

this car is not a Bugatti Veyron for christ sake. How much more power could it have possibly made stock.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You'll never get it right, your own biases stiffle your objectivity. It is all backwards ^ and you do not understand my thought process one bit. There is a body of evidence and I already mentioned what is in that body, it is pretty diverse. From the evidence I have formed a theory, it is not an opinion, it is a theory based on the evidence. I suppose you could call it an opinion but that it is not so much a "personal" thing. I have definitely revised my theory and choice of words over time.

As far as the other dynos what is consistent is those results with some of the best observed performance figures for the car.

Now you're calling it a theory. As far i remember it was your final undisputed conclusion that the GTR was "massively under-rated". Don't try to flip-flop Swamp. Anyway, what i meant by your opinion, is that of you saying that the GTR is cheating and lying base on your insuficient evidence. Again, if you're saying that this car that Edmunds tested on the dyno is not sufficient enough evidence because they don't have any performance data, then why would the other dyno test that does'nt have any performance data either would be valid and sufficient evidence. Let me quote you again so you can understand.

Originally Posted by Swamp

A dyno result is interesting and generally valid when run with great care back to back with another vehicle. This does count as evidence toward the GT-R not being under-rated but you simply can not deny that a A-B dyno comparison is NOT evidence by itself for an under or over rating. What if this car pulled a 4.1 0-60 and 12.2 quarter mile (just for example)? That is the CRUCIAL question here. As I stated, and will state again, I'd LOVE to see real performance numbers for that exact car (both cars actually!). I wonder why these CRUCIAL pieces of information are missing. It sure is not some grand conspiricy but it is odd, they had the cars, why not make some acceleration runs?

Let me repeat it again. The original dyno test that you posted DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERFORMANCE DATA EITHER, IT WAS NOT TESTED AND THERE IS NO PERFORMANCE FIGURES THAT WAS CONDUCTED, NONE WHATSOEVER. So by your logic, it is not sufficient evidence either even though till this day you're still backing it up and standing by it as your final conclusion that the GTR is "massively under-rated". Stop contradicting yourself.

P.S. Please don't tell me that you base your conclusion on the performance data that is available and that it makes sense with the dyno test that you posted, so therefore it must be right. IT IS NOT THE SAME EXACT CAR.

[BMW335icDDS]

Originally Posted by devo

I agree with much of what you are saying. But, are you just plain ignoring what I am saying regarding roll on/in-gear runs?

No, I'm not trying to ignore what you say. I was just trying to make my own point as well. Glad we agree on cars

[gbb357]

1st question:

Did the dyno test that you(swamp) posted have any performance data at all?

Answer: NO. None whatsoever.

2nd question:

Did you (swamp) said that the dyno test does not prove anything unless it has specific performance data on the same car that the dyno test was done on?

Answer: Yes.

Here are some of your own statements.

Originally Posted by Swamp

There is no evidence here really of anything except certain dyno numbers on one car. The contention here always has been that the performance numbers are a bit too good for the stated power output. Please post back when someone can take THIS PARTICULAR CAR and post similar performance figures as the ones we have seen notably for 0-60, 1/4 mi trap and N'Ring time.

Originally Posted by jaiman View Post
So in order to prove the car is not under-rated one would need to Dyno a 911tt and GT-R on the same day, same dyno, then run 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, 0-150-0, and the N-ring using those same cars. Even then if the GT-R showed equivalent dyno numbers to the 911 and put up the better performance numbers it still wouldn't convince you that the "evidence for an under-rating" was you misinterpreting data.

Originally Posted by Swamp

Sure, that would do it for me, simple isn't it? Well everything except the Ring time...

3rd question:

If that is the case, don't you think that original dyno test that you posted in the "GTR massively under-rating" thread does not prove anything at all since there where no performance data that was done on that same car that was tested on the dyno?

Answer: Should be yes, that the original dyno test did not prove anything. But i'm sure you (swamp) would say no. Because that favors you(swamp) and your statement and "opinions" about the GTR being "massively under-rated".

Conclusion:

Swamp would never be convinced that the GTR is not under-rated but rather "massively under-rated" no matter what evidence or proof is presented. And no dyno test on any GTR is valid unless every single GTR is dyno tested and have specific performance data with the exact same car will he approved that the results are valid. Even though the dyno test he originally posted did not have any performance data, in Swamps opinion they where valid because it was enough proof for him to call the GTR "cheating and a liar".

[gbb357]

World Domination
As we discovered in Inside Line's exclusive first test in Japan, the 2009 Nissan GT-R will rocket to 60 mph in just 3.3 seconds and blow through the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at more than 120 mph. This makes the GT-R R35 the quickest accelerating production vehicle we have ever tested. Quicker than any Ferrari. Quicker than any Corvette. Quicker than any Viper. And quicker than the Porsche 911 Turbo that was the yardstick against which Nissan measured all aspects of the GT-R's performance during its development.

If you look at the official Nissan power figures for the GT-R's twin-turbo 24-valve DOHC V6, such performance shouldn't be possible. Nissan rates this engine at 480 horsepower and 434 pound-feet of torque. (These are the figures announced for the GT-R in the Japanese domestic market as tested here, though Nissan promises that all GT-Rs planetwide will produce essentially identical power.) This all-aluminum beast is the most powerful engine ever installed in a production car from Japan, but the GT-R weighs more than 3,800 pounds, and such performance just doesn't add up with these numbers, whether you're using a supercomputer or an abacus.

In contrast, the Porsche 911 Turbo's turbocharged 3.6-liter horizontally opposed six is rated at 480 hp, while the car itself weighs less than 3,600 pounds. And yet the all-wheel-drive Porsche's gasp-inducing 3.4-second wallop to 60 mph is only a tenth-of-a-tick behind the all-wheel-drive Nissan's effort.

The dyno answers our questions. (All the data that follows is uncorrected for weather or altitude.)

Mustang Corral
Harman Motive is one of Southern California's top tuning houses, with a focus on BMW, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Subaru. And the tool that gives Harman its edge in the high-performance market is its Mustang MD-AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer. Harman's dyno cell is a cost-no-object showpiece, complete with an oversize, soundproof enclosure, twin ceiling-mounted air-extraction fans, and even windows for spectators.

Essentially, the Mustang dyno is a set of front rollers and a set of rear rollers that are mechanically linked to one another. The rollers are hooked up in turn to a single eddy-current absorber for the electricity that's produced. By measuring the amount of DC power applied to the coils and measuring the rpm of the spinning rotors, engine power is easily computed.

Even at a shop as hard-core as Harman, the GT-R attracted a crowd as it was strapped down onto the dyno. "God," said one, "that's one big, mean-looking car."

We topped off the GT-R's tank with a blend of 91 octane pump gasoline and enough 100 octane unleaded racing fuel to wind up at around 94 octane, close to what's commonly available in Japan.

The Rollers Tell the Truth
Though the GT-R has sizable exhaust tips, the four exhaust outlets themselves are surprisingly small in diameter, so the car isn't very loud. Nonetheless, the sound of the big tires against the rollers sets up a terrific banshee wail that seems to turn the air into jelly.

It's not an easy deal. All Japan-spec cars are equipped with a top-speed limiter at 180 km/h (112 mph) and we keep banging into it when we use 4th gear in the GT-R. Finally we select 3rd gear and get some clean pulls.

When the computer finishes crunching the numbers, the data tells us that the 2009 Nissan GT-R is putting out 406 hp at 6,400 rpm and 414 lb-ft of torque at 3,800 rpm. Once you factor in the parasitic losses of the all-wheel-drive system, these numbers are wholly in line with Nissan's claim for the engine's power at the crankshaft. During one pull, the horsepower perked up to 414 hp, but it wasn't repeatable and torque production through the midrange suffered.

Earlier, Harman tested a 997-generation Porsche 911 Turbo on the same dyno, and we discovered some interesting things when we overlaid its power curve with that of the GT-R. The Porsche's variable-geometry turbos give its six-cylinder engine a significant advantage in torque output over the GT-R below 3,600 rpm. But once these engines reach the range between 3,600 and 5,700 rpm (where the real work of acceleration must be done), the GT-R's V6 has the 911's flat-6 covered.

One World, One Godzilla
Nissan has long insisted that the 2009 Nissan GT-R will be available only in a single specification across the entire planet. There might be a few software tweaks to adjust for fuel quality in various markets, but for the most part the American-market GT-R that's coming here soon will differ from JSpecConnect.com's GT-R only slightly.

What the dyno charts suggest is that the GT-R's performance advantage isn't solely in the power generated by its twin-turbo V6. Much of the GT-R's edge lies in technology like its launch control system, its dual-clutch automated manual transmission and the awe-inspiring way the all-wheel-drive system ensures that so much of the power makes its way to the road.

The 2009 Nissan GT-R isn't simply a car with a lot of power; it's a car that makes the most out of the power that it has.

At any one time, there can only be one king at the top of the hill. And right now, the Nissan GT-R is enjoying that panoramic view.

Here's the rest of the article and video: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#34

[swamp2]

gbb: I am really done with you. You are so impossible to have a discussion with let alone an argument. You isolate everything and see nothing as a whole or in context. You quote out of context, misinterpret statements, get too emotional, continually miss the main points, don't understand definitions, pretty much do not read, etc., etc., etc.

You win, you are 100% right, I am 100% wrong there never was a shred of evidence that the GT-R was under-rated and never will be. It is a mircale vehicle and Pwns every car ever made. Revel in your glorious and meticulous defeat of swamp2 through your beautifully crafted and brilliant logic and arguments. I bow at your feet to worship your intellect.

Adios, I am so done wasting my time with you.

[gbb357]

^^But did you read the article from Edmunds? And calm down Swamp, i'm just having fun with you.

[footie]

gbb357,

As always your remarks are correct and in my opinion based in facts. The reason why the GTR is on most tests quicker than the equally powered 997tt is down to three other factors,

1: The gearbox which regardless of what Nissan says is changing gears very bit as quick as either DSG or BMW's DCT system will.

2: The efficiency of it's awd system at shifting the power between all of the wheels.

3: It much better balanced chassis in terms of weight.

With the Porsche, unlike when the car is in rwd form and comparing it against other rwd car where it's extra weight over the only driving wheels gives it the advantage of traction, this time round the Porsche is at the disadvantage, unlike the Nissan which has a more balance chassis and when the power is being shifted there is sufficient weight over the wheels to benefit but in the Porsche it doesn't have enough weight over the front wheels to get any where near the same benefit that the GTR has.

This means that in my opinion the GTR holds advantage over the 997tt in aceleration up to about 100mph at which point I believe the Porsche will gain the upper hand. And in the recent CAR rpadtest which included the M3 and R8 it showed that while the GTR was still the quickest to 100mph by 0.1s it was the Porsche which recorded the higher trap speed on the long straight of the track yet wasn't as quick in the corner before it.

[gbb357]

^^ Thanks Footie. It is quite amazing how these two cars are so similar and yet so different in their strenghts.

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by swamp2

gbb: I am really done with you. You are so impossible to have a discussion with let alone an argument. You isolate everything and see nothing as a whole or in context. You quote out of context, misinterpret statements, get too emotional, continually miss the main points, don't understand definitions, pretty much do not read, etc., etc., etc.

You win, you are 100% right, I am 100% wrong there never was a shred of evidence that the GT-R was under-rated and never will be. It is a mircale vehicle and Pwns every car ever made. Revel in your glorious and meticulous defeat of swamp2 through your beautifully crafted and brilliant logic and arguments. I bow at your feet to worship your intellect.

Adios, I am so done wasting my time with you.

Typical Swamp avoiding the questions and retorting to the usual Swamp defensive move of claiming "misinterpretations", "quoting out of context" , and the famous "you're missing the point" response. Everything that i have quoted you on are your own post and none where changed or misinterpreted. Check post #25 when you responded to Jaiman's post, it's the same one i quoted you on. If you're not man enough (you sir is a coward) to admit that you are wrong, that is on you Swamp. I honestly could care less if you admit that or not or even if you're wrong or not. As long as you stop posting B.S. you have nothing to worry about me getting in your face. I always give credit whenever credit is due, and whenever i am wrong, and believe me that happens often enough, i will man up to it. Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, because it will only help me learn more. And on that note, i have learned from you several times because you do have a respectable knowledge about cars and i for one respect that. Till next time Swamp.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by gbb357

Typical Swamp avoiding the questions and retorting to the usual Swamp defensive move of claiming "misinterpretations", "quoting out of context" , and the famous "you're missing the point" response...

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait.

Bruce

[gbb357]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait.

Bruce

Oh yeah, that should be a lot of fun. If that happens i might have to go on vacation away from here. Just kidding, i'll be ready and i'll just have to deal with all his glory. Later Bruce.

Best Regards,
Rommel

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Our next funfest on this topic will be when the U.S. version turns out to be slower than what the current results show, and Swamp will have a field day -until someone points out that the U.S. version has a watered-down launch control algorithm.

I can't wait.

Bruce

What is really funny Bruce is how you are ASSUMING the US (or NA) car WILL be slower than it is in the rest of the world. I don't care one way or the other if it is, although I will be interested in the reason for any differences should they happen. You do realize that Nissan (and most Nissan fans and fanboys) have been "guaranteeing" that the car is a "world spec" car, identical everywhere.

Nice job of assumptions and "pre-excuses" for under performance before the car even gets here. I will emphasize your choice of words here as well, you said "when" not "if". That's particularly funny to me.