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....
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-13-2008, 02:45 PM   #1
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

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

Nissan GT-R and Porsche 911 Turbo dyno results:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotorAuthority
Thereís something very puzzling about Nissanís all new GT-R supercar. Its official output figures read 480hp and 588Nm (434lb-ft) of torque and its mass registers at 1,723kg, but it can still outrun the 911 Turbo to 60mph even though the Porsche weighs in at a lower 1,633 and has a higher torque rating of 620Nm (457lb-ft).

Daryl Alison of JSpecConnect has now taken one of the first U.S.-delivered cars for a dyno run and compared with a 911 Turbo to find out what gives. You may recall that late last year, a GT-R in Japan was tested using a Dynapack dynamometer ( a dyno that connects to the actual wheel hubs of the car) and showed a peak output of 475hp at the hubs. Unfortunately, the credibility and accuracy of the test could never be confirmed.

The latest round of testing was done by the guys at Harman Motive in Torrance, California, and was completed using a Mustang MD-AWD-500-SE chassis dynamometer with rollers. A Dynapack dynamometer was also used for completeness.

On the Mustang dyno, the GT-R registered a peak output of 406hp at 6,400rpm and 560Nm (414lb-ft) of torque at 3,800rpm. Once you factor in the parasitic losses of the drivetrain, these numbers are fully in line with Nissanís official figures. On the same dyno, the 997 Porsche 911 Turbo almost completely matched the GT-R. The power curves of the two cars looking almost identical.

The final check was done using the Dynapack dyno. Here the GT-R measured a peak output of 452hp and 606Nm (448lb-ft) of torque at the hubs, which is reasonable given the higher reading expected due to the elimination of the tires and several internal variations in the way power is calculated.

The final conclusion is that Nissanís power figures are an accurate representation of the GT-Rs might, and as brilliant as the new twin-turbo V6 is equal credit must be given to the carís new launch control system, dual-clutch gearbox and ATTESA-ETS AWD system as these are what help give the car its mystifying track times.



Last edited by gbb357; 03-13-2008 at 03:38 PM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 03:06 PM   #2
MrHarris
yodog
 
MrHarris's Avatar
 
Drives: '86 Corolla
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca

Posts: 5,037
iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2009 BMW  [5.00]
Send a message via AIM to MrHarris
Awesome, now why does the GT-R haul ass weighing at 3800lbs?
MrHarris is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 03:43 PM   #3
!Xoible
Banned
 
Drives: ....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .

Posts: 46,037
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2008 M3  [3.50]
2007 335i  [4.50]
2008 528i  [4.00]
2006 Infiniti - G35 ...  [4.00]
read the last sentence
!Xoible is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 08:30 PM   #4
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,137
iTrader: (1)

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.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 09:15 PM   #5
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
There are two dyno results on two different cars with similar power. 997TT is around 400hp on the wheels and the GTR is 406hp on the wheels as well and they are both rated at 480hp and 485hp, do the math. Please try reading the article first and look at the graphs before you dismiss this. And also read the last sentence. BTW, you easilly accepted the first dyno results as facts but you don't believe this one, why is that. Just because you don't agree with it.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 09:52 PM   #6
jaiman
Captain
 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 657
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
here we go again with the N-ring car and magazine test cars being ringers...
jaiman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-13-2008, 09:57 PM   #7
MShift
Private
 
Drives: Supercharged 370Z
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami

Posts: 90
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to MShift
thats whp, not crank hp
MShift is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 12:00 AM   #8
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,881
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
For those among us who don't take being wrong as a constitutional crisis, this is pretty good evidence - especially when considered along with the previous body of evidence and logic that says the GT-R is exactly what it purports to be: Namely, an inexpensive Porsche Turbo with a terrific gearbox, better torque apportionment and an engine that isn't hung out in another zip code.

Swamp, you of all people should take heart from the performance of this car. With a fairly significant power to weight disadvantage, it runs pretty much even with a Tiptronic Turbo in a drag race, and the Tip is quite a bit quicker than the stick Porsche because of static boost. You've been raving about how good these new gearboxes are (with no argument from me), and when proof shows up you call it a power advantage. Sheesh.

Bruce

Edit: PS - "Drag race" - meaning from a dead stop. From a roll, every single data point we have is that the Porsche walks on the Nissan, just as it should.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 02:42 AM   #9
luckistryke
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: Very very fast
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pleasanton, SF Bay Area, CA

Posts: 311
iTrader: (0)

' an engine that isn't hung out in another zip code.'

hahahhaha good one
__________________
luckistryke is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 03:01 AM   #10
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,137
iTrader: (1)

Bruce (and others), you are still missing my points. What a surprise...

gbb: I read the article. I am not dismissing anything, I am simply saying that dynos alone do not make for PROOF. I also don't buy their conclusion that they know either of the cars drivetrain losses accurately enough to calculate crank figures from wheel figures. Did they use the exact same drivetrain losses? More for the GT-R, less? This is very important to BACK calculate the crank figures. If you are off even 1% here and 1% somewhere else that is 10 hp. Lastly on this point, from it's extra driveshafts, the GT-R should have a bit higher drivetrain losses than the Porsche all else being equal.

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?

Also what is up with the peak torque figures coming up almost the same? That does not really jive.

Hmmm what's next? Last I checked (straight from the article...) 997TT specs vs. GT-R the TT has a 23 ft-lb advantage and carries about 200 lb less weight. Sure the DCT may be good for about that effective amount 20 ft lb or so (IF NISSAN is totally off about their .2 second shift time, which I think they are, it simply has to be better).

I know I should not need to, and no matter how many times I say it, it seems to fall on deaf ears. The GT-R is a fantastic car, it is full of great technology and innovation and I really like the car. The existing tests have all shown a pretty blistering fast car. I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 07:13 AM   #11
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Bruce (and others), you are still missing my points. What a surprise...

gbb: I read the article. I am not dismissing anything, I am simply saying that dynos alone do not make for PROOF. I also don't buy their conclusion that they know either of the cars drivetrain losses accurately enough to calculate crank figures from wheel figures. Did they use the exact same drivetrain losses? More for the GT-R, less? This is very important to BACK calculate the crank figures. If you are off even 1% here and 1% somewhere else that is 10 hp. Lastly on this point, from it's extra driveshafts, the GT-R should have a bit higher drivetrain losses than the Porsche all else being equal.

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?

Also what is up with the peak torque figures coming up almost the same? That does not really jive.

Hmmm what's next? Last I checked (straight from the article...) 997TT specs vs. GT-R the TT has a 23 ft-lb advantage and carries about 200 lb less weight. Sure the DCT may be good for about that effective amount 20 ft lb or so (IF NISSAN is totally off about their .2 second shift time, which I think they are, it simply has to be better).

I know I should not need to, and no matter how many times I say it, it seems to fall on deaf ears. The GT-R is a fantastic car, it is full of great technology and innovation and I really like the car. The existing tests have all shown a pretty blistering fast car. I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.
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.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 07:22 AM   #12
jaiman
Captain
 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

Posts: 657
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I am simply a skeptic and still believe there is much evidence for an under-rating. Any of you who have read all or most of my posts know that when I am wrong I freely admit it with very little drama. If I turn out to be wrong here it won't be too big of a deal as I will never change my view that there is and was evidence for an under-rating.

Cheers.
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.
jaiman is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 07:41 AM   #13
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

After further thought, I do not see why it may be hard for one to believe that the GT-R is not underrated. As we discussed during almost any in-gear acceleration test the 911 will clearly walk the GT-R. The benefit on the track is, in a great part, simply due to Nissan tailoring this car to be more track focused. Porsche softened their turbo to market more of the Mercedes (Grandpa crowd).

Any benefits from a drag/dig race are also simply due to launch control and quicker shifts. I mean, let's face it, the GT-R is not spanking the 911 in any drag runs, it just edges it out. If it did not have DSG it would simply lose.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't SA conduct their own test of the GT-R where it ran a 7:50 compared to a similar run by the 911?

Nissan, like every manufacturer, has created their marketing hype using controlled circumstances to achieve their intended goals. In the real world (street) the GT-R is not going to stand up to the 911tt (even, in softer form) as well, imo.
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 09:26 AM   #14
BMW335icDDS
Doctor
 
BMW335icDDS's Avatar
 
Drives: RRSport, 335vert, 997 S, Sc430
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles and New York

Posts: 634
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
After further thought, I do not see why it may be hard for one to believe that the GT-R is not underrated. As we discussed during almost any in-gear acceleration test the 911 will clearly walk the GT-R. The benefit on the track is, in a great part, simply due to Nissan tailoring this car to be more track focused. Porsche softened their turbo to market more of the Mercedes (Grandpa crowd).

Any benefits from a drag/dig race are also simply due to launch control and quicker shifts. I mean, let's face it, the GT-R is not spanking the 911 in any drag runs, it just edges it out. If it did not have DSG it would simply lose.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't SA conduct their own test of the GT-R where it ran a 7:50 compared to a similar run by the 911?

Nissan, like every manufacturer, has created their marketing hype using controlled circumstances to achieve their intended goals. In the real world (street) the GT-R is not going to stand up to the 911tt (even, in softer form) as well, imo.

Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.
__________________
2002 Lexus Sc430
2007 BMW 335i Convertible Space Gray on Coral Red
2007 Porsche Carrera S
2011 Range Rover Sport HSE Lux
UCLA D.D.S. Columbia University Dental Specialist
BMW335icDDS is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 09:37 AM   #15
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,746
iTrader: (0)

Beer anyone?


Best regards, south
__________________
Those forums...WHY NOT?


JOIN THE 6MT CLUB GROUP
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 09:40 AM   #16
!Xoible
Banned
 
Drives: ....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: .

Posts: 46,037
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2008 M3  [3.50]
2007 335i  [4.50]
2008 528i  [4.00]
2006 Infiniti - G35 ...  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW335icDDS View Post
Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.
i think the GTR is slower than 997tt without tranny, or without engine
!Xoible is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 10:16 AM   #17
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Swamp

Just a little bit off topic. On the M3 vs Vette thread, you posted that the reason why the M3 is as quick if not quicker than the Vette to 60mph or even the 1/4mile even though it's about 500lbs heavier, 20hp less, and at least 100lbs-ft of torque less than the Vette, is because it can put the power better on the ground than the Vette. My point is, this logic can and should apply to the GTR as well. This could explain why it matches the 997TT on acceleration times if not better as well as the other performance figures including The Ring time.

P.S.

And remember that the 0-60 times that are being compared for the M3 vs Vette are done with regular 6spd manual tranny not with the M3's DCT with launch control, so the argument of the M3 having a better launch does not apply. It's all a matter of driver skills.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 10:20 AM   #18
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW335icDDS View Post
Every review I have seen has shown that the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 turbo. Also, how can you criticism the GTR, saying that without its gearbox it would be slower? The gearbox took a ton of R&D to develop and is an integral part of any car. I only credit Nissan for putting in some an awesome transmission for a likewise awesome car. To me, the Nissan edges out the Porsche (remember, I have a 997 S so I'm not trying to be biased) because Nissan just looks at the details a bit closer, under a bigger microscope. They refined and toiled over everything until they were absolutely sure the GT-R would basically beat the 911TT under any conditions in any place.
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.
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 10:23 AM   #19
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

Posts: 1,942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantis View Post
i think the GTR is slower than 997tt without tranny, or without engine
That is not true. The GT-R is faster than everything car on the planet even without any gas. And, it will beat the 997tt twice as bad!
devo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 11:02 AM   #20
dechoong
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: E60 530 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: KL

Posts: 359
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
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.
I agree. I'm looking forward to a fairer comparison when Porsche releases the 997tt with PDK. There's no way a 6 speed manual or an outdated 5 speed autobox from Mercedes can match the GT-R's dual clutch shift speed.
dechoong is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 11:07 AM   #21
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Here's the original post from Edmunds Insideline with video.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#34
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2008, 11:09 AM   #22
spearfisher
Lieutenant
 
spearfisher's Avatar
 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 409
iTrader: (0)

nice find
spearfisher is offline  
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 10:14 AM.




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