Several 335 owners have dynoed their cars and got close to 300hp at the wheels. Automobile magazine got the same results. VividRacing is one of the "everyone" that have said at least 20% base on their experience. I have posted 3 dyno test in this thread that have implied around 15-20% loss. Swamp's analysis and thread have stated 20% loss or more. Can't explain much power is lost through the drivetrain just like you can't explain how Nissan's claim of only 10%.

 

I'm not going in this circle with you again. Not one person you mentioned has ever TESTED a drivetrain while comparing engine dynos to the chassis dyno using the same equipement. Whereas manufacturers will test this sort of thing. For a tuner, higher drivetrain loss gives them a reason to claim higher hp on their kits. This is why people are only using wheel hp numbers now. Nissan lies, but a full 10% is just ignorance on your part.

Besides. Swamp said ~510 crank hp for the fastest street versions which is still far short of your ignorant 540-570 hp except for the ringers.

 

Hey everyone,

I've read this thread several times in the last few weeks, and just joined the forum tonight. So hello, and if I may I'd like to offer one thought on the GT-R controversy.

Just be patient. It'll work itself out in time. If the GT-R isn't as fast as the early mag tests report, it'll get whooped by Corvettes and 911s at HPDEs and in future magazine tests, when the mags can certainly attain a true stock car from a private owner. If it is so great, in stock form, it'll shine in many events for a long time.

I have many opinions, and I won't bother rambling them all off, but its very unlikely that the stock production GT-Rs are the supercar killing juggernauts the Nissan fans touted them as for a while, but they are probably pretty quick. In the end the GT-R will be closer to "just another car" than to the paradigm changing mega machine Nissan worked very hard to make it seem like. But the owners must be having a great time these days with their car getting so much attention.

Anyway, this thread has been an interesting read, very interesting. I'd just throw one log on the fire:

the Nissan fans say that the reason the GT-R keeps up with more powerful cars on the big straightaway is its superior stability. The recent Motor Trend comparison reported that the GT-R was not very comforting/stable at speed, but the ZR1 was. Which contradicts the Nissan camps explanation. Magazine tests are at best really questionable, at worst just silly, but they are the foundation of the GT-Rs reputation, so I thought mentioning one might make sense.

take it easy,

CL

 

Also, with respect to testing cars for their potential on different tracks, "same driver same day" isn't even close to "accurate". Which car did the driver like better, feel more comfortable in, have the most experience with? Beyond that, if one given driver drove 3 cars (say a C6 Z06, a GT-R, and a 997 TT) for years, maybe his/her set of coordination/reflexes/talent would still favor one car. One driver may feel comfortable with a slow entry/hard throttle in the corners, one may feel better with understeer, on and on.

The one and the only way to know the potential of different cars around a given track would be to have a sort of "fast list", like the 'vette guys have for drag racing, for different tracks where everybody could post their best times. From that alot could be learned, far more than from a couple of magazine tests with all the variables they have.

And tires should NOT be stock. The definition of stock should NOT include tires. Tires are wear items that are changed in 100% of cars over the life of the vehicle. And nobody sane would run stock tires to the track over and over if they enjoyed HPDEs.

Goodnight,

CL

 

Hey, how about we start the next GTR thread in the GTR forum......

 

I have another idea, also. I know I've said it before at least twice. Bring 4 or 5 GTR's to the 2009 'ring 24. Then, we can see what kind of laps they turn under controlled conditions, as well as see how they hold up over 24 hours of racing.

 

You're the one that believed the 10% that Nissan claims, who's ignorrant.

 

Say what! How and why would a tuner give themselves a reason to claim higher hp base on the stocks car whp dyno test results. That doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless how much whp they get on a stock car dyno test, the end result on the same dyno test with their kit still determines how much whp gain they get. Vividracing got 450whp when they tested the GTR on their dyno, so from there, what ever power they get from their kit is the only claim they can present. So if they get 500whp after their kit, then they can only claim 50hp more. Unless they're going to lie and say 100hp, but then again they have charts to show and prove what they got. Are you okay, have you ran out of brain cells.

In regards to this silly comment of yours.

So basically with your logic, none of the dyno test is valid. So they're all wrong when they estimated that the GTR's that they tested is under-rated, and you are right. All of them are wrong, they do this for a living, but you, who is obviously an expert on this and know more about dyno testing, are right. Excuse me for a second............................................ ..........

 

I actually would'nt mind ending the thread with these two posts. I couldnt (and havent) said it better myself though it's spot on IMO.

But I have thought about the fast list, because everyone who's fast in one car isnt fast in another because it takes a totally different level (or type) of driving technique to go fast in a GT3 than it does in a Z06. I really think the 911's get the short end of the stick in mag comparisons because it takes so much knowledge of how to use the configuration to get anything out of it. In fact it could take years of experience at one track to get the most out of a GT3. That's what I love about it. But as we see in pro racing, and guys lapping incredible times at DE's, once you get it right, it's one insanely fast car for such a small amount of hp.

A properly driven GT3 by someone who's very familiar with how to drive the chassis, is hard to beat. Somewhat similar with a Corvette only you really just need to know the limits of how much power you can put down.

 

FOR THE LAST TIME. THE GT-R ACCELERATES (NOT DYNOS) EXACTLY WHERE IT SHOULD FOR 480-510 HP AND 3800 LBS.

ALL THIS DYNO GARBAGE IS JUST THAT. THE CAR IS NOT 540-570 HP.

You would be the only idiot to think that Nissan would claim a drivetrain loss 10% off what it actually does. And beleive a tuner who hasnt tested it on an engine dyno to verify the results. But at this point I'm really not putting it past you.

 

just so you guys know, I witnessed dyno tests of two GTR's a white one and a black one, yesterday. One dynoed at 421 awhp and the other dynoed at 428 awp with a 15% altitude correction factor. The real altitude correction factor should be about 7-8% based on my calcs and what I have seen from a few cars at the dragstrip versus that same car at sea level. So 428/1.15 x 1.08= 401 whp corrected for elevation (it was dry and about 50 degrees). 401/480= 83% or 17% loss through the awd drivetrain. If you presume the std 18-20% loss for awd cars, then these cars were putting out between 480 and 500 crank. So the hp numbers are where they should be.

 

YOU'RE THE IDIOT THAT TOLD ME THAT NISSAN CLAIMS 10% LOSS AND YOU BELIEVED IT. I'll go look for that post of yours so you can put your foot in your mouth. Explain to me again why would a tuner claim a higher gain base on their dyno test. You can't, because your stupid.

 

yah, there is no awd car that gets 13-14% loss much less 10% from a front engined awd car using two driveshafts and an automatic tranny. Can you say tons of loss.... typically awd cars are in the 18-22% loss and rwd cars run 14-16%. These are known stds.

 

Drove a 997 turbo and a GTR back to back today. Conclusion: 911 has more turbo lag and REALLY needs a PDK. Lack of PDK makes turbo feel prehistoric. Just on the transmission alone, I can see where the GTR makes up time over the turbo. In all honesty, the difference between a traditional box and a DSG is like night and day.
GTR REALLY needs a face lift. Don't mind the back, but whoever design the front should've been shot.
Turbo still looks better.

 

the GTR truly looks like godzilla next to other sportscars, it is huge. But in black it is not so ugly. I kinda liked the black one I saw yesterday. It is probably a much easier car to drive as well and the average person is more likely to be able to drive one faster than a 911, which does require an experienced shoe to get the most out of it. I think that a pro 911 driver will be faster around a track than a pro GTR driver, the 911 just has the right formula, power to weight ratio is definitely in favor of the 911 turbo. I think that if Nissan gave the GTR a manual transmission that did not cost 20k when a clutch fails, it might be slower, but much more fun and probably 10k cheaper, which would put it where it should be....