997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#903
10-17-2008, 08:40 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 
Only one brokem tranny has been opened up, and that's the one from Russia. It obviously had the gearing go boom. But the rest Nissan arent even opening up. And they dont repair, they replace, there is something in the diagnostic that tells them it's shot and the dealer cant even find out what the problem is, they fly in Japanese techs to diagnose it.
It's really low budget how they are treating people. You have to take their word that it's your fault the car went up in smoke and they dont even open it up to tell you what broke exactly.
#904
10-17-2008, 08:48 PM
Borg-Warner makes the transmission, they have their own transmission. And seeing as Nissan has given them an award for innovation (assumingly for making an affordable unit capable of "handling" the power of the GT-R).
But Nissan is screwing them by putting a 4500 dump clutch LC in the car to get mag numbers. That will kill ANY clutch, and Nissan did a hack job of developing the car around it. They just tossed it in there. I'm sure Borg Warner is upset, but they have their own reputation and arent reliant on Nissan.
They build the M3's tranny too, and Audi engines and various other MAJOR things. The recall in Japan was due to Nissan's poor application of the oil supply that caused the tranny's to fail. The trannies are excellent, the application is not.
DSG were not too long ago considered only to be able to handle certain amounts of power that were really low. This was a big question on the GT-R when it came out because the only car to put big hp/weight numbers on a DSG was the Veyron, but it's a 1.5m car. So they had a much bigger budget on the tranny and it's got much more developement.
Borg Warner has nothing to worry about.
But Nissan is screwing them by putting a 4500 dump clutch LC in the car to get mag numbers. That will kill ANY clutch, and Nissan did a hack job of developing the car around it. They just tossed it in there. I'm sure Borg Warner is upset, but they have their own reputation and arent reliant on Nissan.
They build the M3's tranny too, and Audi engines and various other MAJOR things. The recall in Japan was due to Nissan's poor application of the oil supply that caused the tranny's to fail. The trannies are excellent, the application is not.
DSG were not too long ago considered only to be able to handle certain amounts of power that were really low. This was a big question on the GT-R when it came out because the only car to put big hp/weight numbers on a DSG was the Veyron, but it's a 1.5m car. So they had a much bigger budget on the tranny and it's got much more developement.
Borg Warner has nothing to worry about.
#905
10-17-2008, 08:51 PM
Only one brokem tranny has been opened up, and that's the one from Russia. It obviously had the gearing go boom. But the rest Nissan arent even opening up. And they dont repair, they replace, there is something in the diagnostic that tells them it's shot and the dealer cant even find out what the problem is, they fly in Japanese techs to diagnose it.
It's really low budget how they are treating people. You have to take their word that it's your fault the car went up in smoke and they dont even open it up to tell you what broke exactly.
It's really low budget how they are treating people. You have to take their word that it's your fault the car went up in smoke and they dont even open it up to tell you what broke exactly.
#907
10-17-2008, 08:57 PM
Borg-Warner makes the transmission, they have their own transmission. And seeing as Nissan has given them an award for innovation (assumingly for making an affordable unit capable of "handling" the power of the GT-R).
But Nissan is screwing them by putting a 4500 dump clutch LC in the car to get mag numbers. That will kill ANY clutch, and Nissan did a hack job of developing the car around it. They just tossed it in there. I'm sure Borg Warner is upset, but they have their own reputation and arent reliant on Nissan.
They build the M3's tranny too, and Audi engines and various other MAJOR things. The recall in Japan was due to Nissan's poor application of the oil supply that caused the tranny's to fail. The trannies are excellent, the application is not.
DSG were not too long ago considered only to be able to handle certain amounts of power that were really low. This was a big question on the GT-R when it came out because the only car to put big hp/weight numbers on a DSG was the Veyron, but it's a 1.5m car. So they had a much bigger budget on the tranny and it's got much more developement.
Borg Warner has nothing to worry about.
But Nissan is screwing them by putting a 4500 dump clutch LC in the car to get mag numbers. That will kill ANY clutch, and Nissan did a hack job of developing the car around it. They just tossed it in there. I'm sure Borg Warner is upset, but they have their own reputation and arent reliant on Nissan.
They build the M3's tranny too, and Audi engines and various other MAJOR things. The recall in Japan was due to Nissan's poor application of the oil supply that caused the tranny's to fail. The trannies are excellent, the application is not.
DSG were not too long ago considered only to be able to handle certain amounts of power that were really low. This was a big question on the GT-R when it came out because the only car to put big hp/weight numbers on a DSG was the Veyron, but it's a 1.5m car. So they had a much bigger budget on the tranny and it's got much more developement.
Borg Warner has nothing to worry about.
#908
10-18-2008, 05:47 AM
#910
10-18-2008, 07:08 AM
How then could it be underrated? Even the 11's @120 and 121 only suggest hp at about 500 or a tad above.
The 996 and 997 TT's are only 15%, so with the DSG being more along the lines of a more efficient SMG it makes plenty of sense that since the attessa is based on the same concept as the TT's AWD that it could lose less through the drivetrain.
The 996 and 997 TT's are only 15%, so with the DSG being more along the lines of a more efficient SMG it makes plenty of sense that since the attessa is based on the same concept as the TT's AWD that it could lose less through the drivetrain.
In any case, for a 4000lb car to run 117 to 120 mph trap speed, it's putting down way more than advertised, don't give them credit for having a drivetrain that is more efficient when it is not. Doesn't the car have two driveshafts because of the forward placed transmission? More moving parts means more loss and breakdown.
#911
10-18-2008, 07:24 AM
#912
10-18-2008, 10:06 AM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 when I said tranny, I meant clutch because you have to replace tranny. If the drivetrain is already at it's limit, then 60hp could mean the difference, especially when you add launch control.
I don't believe they are getting sub 15% loss thru the drivetrain. Not in a front engined AWD car. Two driveshafts, blah, blah, blah, those cars are loosing hp to the wheels. Our cars are probably more efficient because of the drivetrain design. I would like to see a true crank hp rating on one and then a whp rating.
In any case, for a 4000lb car to run 117 to 120 mph trap speed, it's putting down way more than advertised, don't give them credit for having a drivetrain that is more efficient when it is not. Doesn't the car have two driveshafts because of the forward placed transmission? More moving parts means more loss and breakdown.
I don't believe they are getting sub 15% loss thru the drivetrain. Not in a front engined AWD car. Two driveshafts, blah, blah, blah, those cars are loosing hp to the wheels. Our cars are probably more efficient because of the drivetrain design. I would like to see a true crank hp rating on one and then a whp rating.
In any case, for a 4000lb car to run 117 to 120 mph trap speed, it's putting down way more than advertised, don't give them credit for having a drivetrain that is more efficient when it is not. Doesn't the car have two driveshafts because of the forward placed transmission? More moving parts means more loss and breakdown.
If you do the math you'll see that it doesnt need any more power than advertised to trap 117 and only a little more to trap 120. It falls right in line with the rest of the cars in that weight/power range.
Unless we really know the design of the drivetrain we cant really make an assessment as to which is more efficient. And since Porsche has been using essentially the same AWD unit since the 993, it's likely not the most efficient.
I wholeheartedly beleive that the clutch cant handle more than 600 hp (Crank) and simple deductive reasoning says that just a ECU and exhaust on a turbo car would put the 540+ GT-R's over the alloted limit. The GT-R hit 600 hp like 6 months ago, and nothing more since. There is a VERY good reason for that, the clutch.
#913
10-18-2008, 11:49 AM
Just for comparison, a CLK Black series usually does around 12.6 and 116mph in the 1/4 mile with 507hp. And it's pretty close to the GTR's weight at 3875. The M6 is pretty close as well at around 12.8 and 115mph and it is also close to the GTR's weight at around 3800bls. Now the GTR might not be trapping that much higher but it seems to be much quicker. The slowest i've read and seen is 12.0, the quickest is 11.3 which is suspect. Dragtimes has it at 11.8 at 118mph. Does it make sense that if it is making 540hp that it'll be quicker but have a close trap speed than the M6 and CLK-BS?
#914
10-18-2008, 12:47 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551
M6 115 mph??? HAHAHA, if you are going to take an average time for the M6, then take an average time for the GT-R which is 117.
Here is an M6 running 120's at MIR which is in the northeast where the only GT-R's are trapping 121. People dont understand how much faster those track are that the vast majority of the rest of the country.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e63...1-4-times.html
If the slowest GT-R you've seen is 12.0 you havent looked very far, in fact you havent even looked at the links I posted in this thread.
The M6 has almost identical weight/power ratio, it actually takes more hp in the M6 to get those speeds that it does in the GT-R because of aero which comes into play increasingly after 60 mph, and more weight, and slower shifts.
THE GT-R IS NOT 540 HP. PERIOD!
Here is an M6 running 120's at MIR which is in the northeast where the only GT-R's are trapping 121. People dont understand how much faster those track are that the vast majority of the rest of the country.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e63...1-4-times.html
If the slowest GT-R you've seen is 12.0 you havent looked very far, in fact you havent even looked at the links I posted in this thread.
The M6 has almost identical weight/power ratio, it actually takes more hp in the M6 to get those speeds that it does in the GT-R because of aero which comes into play increasingly after 60 mph, and more weight, and slower shifts.
THE GT-R IS NOT 540 HP. PERIOD!
Last edited by heavychevy; 10-18-2008 at 12:51 PM.
#915
10-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Again, not according to VividRacing and many others that have dynoed the GTR, they all say it is under-rated, and by their estimates, it's about 540hp or more. Yes i have seen the M6 with a higher trapspeed, i just used that one as an example from InsideLine. I believe C&D trapped the M6 at 120mph before.