not shocking - Nissan GT-R hub dyno results
This is from December 2007 . . .
http://jpcnews.blogspot.com/2007/12/...published.html Best Car had their GT-R put on a hub dyno and it made the claimed flywheel number at the hubs. The number was 354.5 kilowatts while the claimed number was 353. In horsepower, that's 475.4 hp at the hubs and the familiar claimed 473 at the crank. Soo, figuring in 10% drivetrain loss, that would be a whopping 528.2 horsepower at the flywheel. Of course, 10% is just a guess (there'd be less power loss without the wheels on . . . that's why I used a more conservative 10% instead of 15% but that's no guarantee of accuracy.) The other earlier threads on GT-R dyno numbers shows that this is not the first or last word on GT-R dyno runs. http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55448 http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55143 |
Lol.
|
The thing with turbo cars is that it's highly dependent on air temp, humidity. Who knows, maybe given the right time, it might produce 600hp at the crank.
|
Quote:
Hopefully there'll come the day when all of us will finally learn to appreciate true engineering efforts and leave that stupid hate and stubborn domestic fanboyism behind the door. |
Quote:
Until I see a GT-R line up against a CGT and go head to head, and actually witness a GT-R blowing the CGT into the weeds I for one call complete bullshit. Nossan should have stuck to their original pan of "beating the 911 Turbo" But making up crap that their car would dominate and anihilate the likes of the RT12, Enzo, CGT and Koeniggsegg is laugable. Note the debate is not aboue Z06 or 911Turbo vs GT-R - so you may as well give up your domestic hate... there is no "domestic" anything in this debate. Not sure if yo uhave been in and/or aournd the cars mentioned, but the RT12 and CGT are frighteningly fast... and its not just 0-60 in 3.xs tht is fast, we are talking corner entry, mid corner, corner exit, straight away etc. And to achieve that level of performance to extreme power and weight loss - are we now all to believe that Nissan somehow, in a $75,000 car that uses barely any lightweight exotic structurale material has been able to take a 800lb heavier and 200hp weaker car and somehow made it FASTER?? Please - this is as absurd as someone showing up at an F1 race with an F3000 car and claiming to have a higher lap time than the qualifier. If thats the case, then lets see it on track side by side. Because if ture, then this 7:30 time means that the GT-R will visible blow a CGT and RT12 into the weeds. We are talking anihilate them on the straights, pass them up the inside of corners and outbrake them round the outside dominaiton. Surely, if possible then Nissan have just reinvented the automobile and every other light weight high power should just go home. I mean, this GT-R is faster around the 'Ring than even a Caterham Superlight 400? Bull - shit :) I am sure, if this was the case, then Porsche AG would already have been seen thrashing a GT-R around the ring by autospys. After all, Nissan just rendered all the CGT weight savings pointless. :rolleyes: |
Quarter mile results? The trap speed says the most about horsepower. This 480 hp 3850 lb car hit 121 mph . . . there are plenty of drag oriented cars with similar ratings that can hook up but still can't achieve that. Yes, I am suspicious. My guess is still 510-515 bhp. a 7-8% difference in power (if only that much) is a pretty major difference. I'd gladly take a 7-8% boost in power in any of my vehicles.
|
Quote:
|
Makes you wonder why all manufacturers wouldn't adhere to just one standard in power measuring. Or why a company would intentionally lie...
|
I find this funny. How often do you see car company saying that their car has less bhp than it actually has? Like is it a bad thing now? lol
And why should they lie, couse if they are this is going to be discovered eventually... |
Lower HP means you are competing with a lower class of cars in terms of power. Giving it an advantage in the market segment to justify the higher price. Or make it look like an engineering marvel.
Keep in mind that turbo charging is the easiest way to make HP, so claiming to make 550 from a 3.8 engine is not as jaw dropping as having ~470 hp and beating anything up to 650. Thus "proving" its advance chassis design, drivetrain, and engine tuning. It's more about brand polishing than it's about cars ;) This is a product to make ppl that can't afford a GT-R believe they are getting similar treatment in the POS lower lineup. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Most people will find it pretty easy to set fast times whit the gtr But the cgt is more for the hardcore/expert driverss that have plenty of skill so it will be allot harder to set fast times (99.9%) of drives will find it trickey car to drive hard. Anyway i can't wait wath sort of times the real production gtr's will set. Maby the will set slower set wo cars. So please stop comparing a awd to rwd car |
Quote:
Why bring in anything about "regular drivers" - they ar enot being discussed. Quote:
BTW, the Veyron and RT12 are AWD cars. I am not sure i fyou saw the news, but the GT-R crushed the CGT, Ezno, Zonda, Veyron, Superlight, Radical and tweaked GT2 - that means Nissan took an 1800kg car with 480bhp and slower acceleration than anyone else, and went faster. What' not to compare? |
Quote:
You should have noticed that all cars that set quick times are RWD. The closest AWD with that kinda weight is the LP640, and it's lapping at 7:40 with 640hp ;-) Of course, no one knows if it's wearing PZ Corsa or PZ Rosso. But setup to setup, I will give the advantage to the lambo given the much lower center of gravity and the ceramic brakes means lower unsprung weight. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.