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.

True or false, that doesn't really matter even if it has some 20-30 hp over the official 480 rating. It's blistering pace relative to the competition isn't about the power-to-weight advantage anyways. I pretty much thought everyone was satisfied with the drag strip test results, no?

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.

What stupid hate and stubborn domestic fanboyism?

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.

I myself believe it outputs more than 480hp despite what the president of Nissan Technical Center North America assure us of. Anyway, i'd like to see someone taking that VR38 engine for some real crank measurements and to see what it's really losing through the drivetrain. I'm very curious. Ultra-low friction bearings aside :-D

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.

With the GT-R, it's not a slight underestimate (like in the case of the last 8.3 litre vipers that had power outputs that might vary +/- 1%) Either the wizardry of the GT-R is real, or they're simply hiding the true power output. It's deceptive with no legitimate excuse. I said this once before but I'll say it again. I'm sure the Nissan engineers aren't so lousy that they can't figure out how much power the engine is putting out.

I bet it has an adaptive overboost ability, and on the road course it simply boosts power to 700bhp when needed ;)

Don't forget that the nissan gtr r35 is meant is a everyday supercars and it's as easy to drive as a nissan micra
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

Everything you typed means noting - the GT-R crushed the CGT, Ezno, Zonda, Veyron, Superlight, Radical and tweaked GT2.

Why bring in anything about "regular drivers" - they ar enot being discussed.

Why not?

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?

It is interesting that you brought this up.
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.

Stop being a child will you.

I am just saying what most people are thinking.

SO you are willing to say the GT-R will destroy a CGT, Enzo, Radical, Zonda etc anywhere anytime? Even the Veyron?

Do youhonestly think a stock GT-R will out pace a GT3-Cup Race Car?

Here is the laptimes list of the green hell
The radical is still the king
And the cgt is one second faster than the gtr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordsch...test_lap_times
Rc45 please stop spreading bs your times are not correct

Wrong again that is what you think

No its not - it what everyone with common sense is thinking.

Ok will use some sense now myself

Damn - if you do that, then who is going to offer the counter point I need to [rant] against?? ;) :P

Play time is over
Their are plenty of people on the board
Maby they have alien engineers at nissan?
:laugh:

Bingo.. :)

Maby they can help improve your vette
Then will lap the ring in 30 seconds
:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Can we change the name of this forum to the "GT-R fanboy vs haters club" Im tired of this shit, just leave the damn thing alone lol

^^^ - you're just pissed because then GT-R will run rings around your car.. my car is at least hampered by too much power, too light of a weight and too sticky tyres.. but you have the extra weight, lack of power and AWD of the GT-R (not to mention superior brake pads - those make all the difference) so should be right there nipping its heels with a 7:35 time - so what's your excure? ;)

Going fast in a straight line doesnt mean the car is fast aruond corners. Out of all the people here RC.. you should know this.. NOW.. lets dual it out in GTA4 byatch!

Your point?

The GT-R is slow in a straight line and around corners... can't wait to meet up with one on the streets - especially after the guy/gal paid $40,000 extra just to get one of the first ones.

My point is obvious man dont make me spell it out. It's stupidly simple. Not every one can drive a car on the edge.

I'm still not sure what your point is though?

Are we still discussing the GT-R or an STi or a Z06 ??

Supposedly anyone can go fast in a GT-R - it just does everything by computer ;)

I agree with RC. There's something sneaky about GT-R. I like the car and it's performance, but something just isn't right about the given numbers.

I'll just add this here for the sake of reference.

http://kultivate.wordpress.com/2008/...r-on-the-dyno/

For like the 7th time or something now, my guess is still 515 at the crank.

The controversey continues.. http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtes...deo/index.html
Randy pobst tests.. Results: beats the r8 around laguna by .5 seconds. Not exactly the 5 secs it did in the tests by Mr. Millen now is it. Also mentioned the tires being rediculous. Finally.. apparently its alot less drive itself then you might think..

I spoke with a gent that had a chance to thrash a GT-R around a track in anger - and his conclusion was that the car pushed like a bus, the tyres made the day, but were shot by 5pm... and that the car is a lot of fun to drive - while the tyres provide the needed level of grip, but that the car slows down as the day progresses and your tyres and brakes take a beating managing all that weight.

They corner weighted the car - I believe he said 3960lbs tanked up and ready for track duty.

He would love to have one as a daily driver, but concluded in stock form it is not a very serious track car, and will be hellish expensive on consumables and required maintenance if you do track it often.

add one 150+ pound driver and you've got 2 tons to sling around.

aughh, I guess this thread from May is why my great realization recently that the GT-R made more hp that is claimed was by that time old news.

At $70,000 this car is a bargin, the extra hp is just a bonus.

Too bad the GT-R does n't weigh 3000lbs and look like a F430.

Well, this and other GT-R threads before it. :|

Ok just to repeat other threads before (since I'm sure its been mentioned) How about a factory GT-RS, a factory light weight version of the car. (or GT-NSXR) No, tuner aftermarket cars dont count, gotta be from the factory.

Really this car is almost perfect. Fast powerful inexpensive, probably since its Japanese it doesn't break much.

I can live with the looks, as that is subjective and tends to be fickle with time. But the weight is a real issue.

Imagine what this car could do with 600 or 800 less pounds. Aluminum, carbon fiber, and take lots of shite off that you dont need. Carpet, power windows, SAT Nav, radio delete, and the right sun visor.

:-) ok Wikipedia says there's going to be something called a GT-R Spec V, but its only going to be 200 lbs lighter.

What I know about JDM could fit on the head of a pin.

I think the big surprise to the market and user community might be how "soft" the stock components end up being.

The GT-R is a well built well matched setup, I think key being well-matched. Individual systems may work well together and be quite reliable at stock settings, but tuned they might prove to be fickle and unreliable - and this I think is why the Spec V and other factory options will carry a much higher price as the critical components get updated and beefed up.

And yes, 3900lbs is a lot of weight to pull around - especially for folks used to light weight Corvettes and Porsches.

Yes, exactly.

Well in one of the top gear reviews of the new r35, they were going on about how each block is hand built.. which may cause a slight vary in hp for each car.....but to be able to make the claimed hp at the wheels then at the flywheel is !!!!

The response to that is that plenty of engines are made by hand: mercedes amgs, ferrari engines, oh and the Corvette Z06.. to name a few. None of these engines are off by that much.

Furthermore, it's not like the parts aren't machined. The workers assemble the engine parts . . . they don't forge them one by one by hand or anything.

To an extent, Ferrari does. But I don't think that would change the power output, not by 40hp anyway. They all have the same mold, I'd assume.

But then again all the surfaces that matter are machined to the same tollerances.

^Yup.

40hp difference due to the engine's being "handbuilt" is just bs.

Now it would make more sense if Nissan "accidentally" put the V-Spec engine in the 'Ring car due to some highly unlikely, but inevitable error. ;-)

Does blueprinting an engine give you more hp or just more revs. Thats sort of handbuilding, polishing the intake?

I understand the balancing of all the reciprocating components during the blueprinting process will allow all around better behaviour - smoother quicker revving, slight power improvement etc.

Most tolerances today are good enough from the factory that you can't do a huge amount with it. Check out how little Car and Driver were able to eak out of their Nissan 350Z's 3.5 litre.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ng+page-2.html

Balancing helps revs, reduces stress on the crank a bit, and helps efficiency a bit. For instance, my car's pistons and connecting rods all have identical bob weights (to the nearest gram I think.)

Also, this gets a more significant result from larger engines . . . the gain from a 6.6 litre is quite a bit larger (but given all other things equal, not proportionally larger due diminishing returns due to scaling) than what one would get from 3.8. I don't know how much the turbo could take advantage of the better tolerances and balance though. Building revs more quickly would be beneficial but that wouldn't make for a much larger peak.