Case in point in bold.


You still have no acceleration data to suggest it's underrated. The ring GT-R only suggests cheating, not that the whole model line is underrated.

 

Get over it already, you know that you and I are NOT saying the same thing.


It's not cheating if all the cars have the same hp. I dont care what they claimed as far as HP, BUT if the ring GT-R has more hp than what they are selling then the car is not a standard production GT-R and it is then cheating.


The acceleration suggests the ring GT-R is cheating. Dyno numbers dont mean crap if all these 540 minimum hp GT-R's can only trap 114-121 mph.


Your comprehension level is disturbing.

 

If they're under-rating regardless on any of the GTR, whether it's the one used in The Ring or the ones you buy from the dealer, IMO that's cheating. It doesn't matter to me if they're trapping 114 or 121, the fact is all of the dyno test suggest it's making more than 485hp. That is my only point.

You have the audacity to question my comprehension when you sound like you ride the short bus. I have already stated that they cheated in The Ring because the car that they ran is under-rated.

 

Good points, I agree with the bulk of what you are saying. But I do have a few disagreements and comments.

1. You have GPS data that proves A GT-R keep up with 600 hp cars. OK fine. Such claims always beg the question with the GT-R as to WHICH GT-R it was and how much power that particular one was putting down. So unless you know a lot more than you really could know about THAT car, you have not really proved much.

2. DCTs are great for the track and are even more important in a turbo charged engine that has lag issues. AFAIK the lag in the GT-R is minimal to none.

3. There are no "systematic biases" in my models, period. The regression modeling does have limitations, for sure and things I have mentioned previously (just a couple posts back) including DC units will all contribute to making a car perform better than the regression would predict. The point here is that with 3 different GT-Rs on three different tracks the cars performed so differently that they must have been in a different state of tune. Furthermore in all cases I don't believe the factors other than power to weight are large enough to explain the differences. In this data set there are already 2WD and AWD cars, there are DC cars, there are cars with near race rubber, there are ace drivers, and of course varying temperatures and track conditions. All of these variables help establish the natural/observed spread and thus the standard deviation. We all expect the GT-R to perform better than the mean regression prediction, after all it is a very advanced car and very capable. The key question is better by how much. Although I do not have the analysis to rigorously prove it, the other regression work I have done says that these variables are not enough to provide nearly 3.5 standard deviations of gap. As well there is a thread of consistency you can draw between the video, my analysis of the videos, the regression analysis, some reported 1/4 trap speeds and some dyno results. They all point to quite a significant under rating.

4. If you look at power to weight for drags or for rolling start drags the correlation becomes even stronger than it does for a course with turns. This is obvious. This is why in the simulation and comparison analysis vs. the ZR1 in the straight section of track taken at WOT was chosen. Here, as I mentioned in my post at m3post.com, this is nothing but a hp war (again technically a power to weight war).

Cheers.

 

Like the other poster said most DCTs use Borg Warner technology but build this into their own units. I think the main thin they get from Borg directly or from their IP/patents are the concentric dual clutches.

It would be interesting to know where the other systems you mention come from, I don't know.

 

Chrisn has data that supports the GT-R keeping up with 600 hp cars???

Let's see it. I surely hope this isnt the same data that would show F1crazydriver keeping up in the 996 TT on crap tires and base 996's on MPSC. That's not accurate data to use as criteria.

 

As I have said before, you are the one making the accusations, you are the one who needs to prove these allegations.

You have never even driven the car, refuse to believe any of the published independent test reviews and figures, constantly spam car forums with accusations and fabrications about it, and I'm the troll?

What is your agenda?

 

HC:

Here's my proof: https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...7-post663.html (from this thread). I suppose it is technically "evidence" and not dispositive, but still better data than has been used above.

HC & Swampy: These are both my cars. You are right that I don't know for sure how much power each is making-- but isn't empirical dats from real world better than dyno anyway? Maybe I have a ringer GT-R and an unethical tuner on my 997TT. However, my main point it to highlight (with real live data from ME in MY CARS) that the Dual Clutch makes a big difference. Look at the chart.

Swampy: It's been a long time since I took my stats classes in undergrad, but my reference to "systematic bias" (maybe my vocab is wrong) was not meant as an insult, it was a technical comment that if your model if consistently wrong, you prob need to take a look at the variables you are tracking instead of explaining the observed world as being highly improbable (many sigmas away from mean). I think your model would be better if it included a "shift time" variable. I am highly highly confident (R^2 =99.99; would bet my life on it) that a predictive HP model would be better if it accounted for shift times. How could it possibly be otherwise? I do hear you, that you are pointing to differences among the GT-Rs, which maybe could be explained by weather or other factors. I think your are saying "7:29 car must be more powerful than other GT-Rs" and I am saying "It may be (who can know?), but don't forget the non-HP factors when talking ring times."

Swampy: No turbo has no lag. Turbo cars get extra bonus from dual clutch in that you get to WOT shift, which keeps turbos fully spun up. Agree that GT-R makes this benefit (at the margin) less than other cars, but it is still there.

 

This comment made my DAY!!!

 

Damn, I ran out of popcorn.

 

I'm suprised heavchev and so many others are still argueing about this lol! What a bunch of whiny little fanboy babies. I have yet to read one article that has depicted the 997tt faster than the gt-r. I have read TONS of excuses though lol

 

Fresh batch of popcorn...

 

I had pop corn but Alpine_997 eated it.

 

I have made my statments, and they are very understandable. There is plenty of video evidence and logic that supports much of what I say. That is if you arent making excuses for why X person is drifting and calling it a timed lap, or why steve millen is great in one car and mediocre in another.

If you havent been able to tell that Nissan has been pulling strings then you just dont want to see it. All is needed in this case is a reasonable doubt, and we have several reasons to doubt Nissan. From their lying to customers through the media with the launch control, to getting called on their lap times. Combine that with their HISTORY OF LYING and it all makes sense that Nissan will do anything to get good press.


But like I said all that's been said before, and I dont answer to trolls. So you'll have to use the search feature to find anything more.

And yes you are on 6speed, which is a PORSCHE enthusiast site, arguing about the GT-R with no appearant interest in Porsche. THAT MAKES YOU A TROLL!!!

 

Here in MiniD eating his popcorn watching the GT-R Debate.





I will make more...