Godzilla (as they call it) Vs whatever it seems

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Well one way to settle the argument would be to put the GT-R on a dyno and figure out how much real wheel hp it has.

Or rip the engine out of the bay and see how much it puts out.

It already does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds, give or take.

I find it hard to believe too, doing the Nurburgring in that time. But since it already does 0-60 in that time, I don't have much to doubt.

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.
i guess the GT-R is so preceded by his fame that we (well, they) want it to be superb whatever it takes. the simply fact that is the first gt-r truly commercialized out of Japan probably are over-exiting a lot of journalists and enthusiasts, like if they don't want do be disappointed at all. sure this car is fast, but this is just too much. i already expressed my ideas btw.
if i try to be nice with the gt-r, i could say that an italian magazine managed to sprint a 430 from 0 to 64 in 3,6 seconds. given a little advantage to the nissan for the AWD and the DSG, and a little advantage to the 430 for the amazing electronic differential (and also a really fast gearbox), since the cars have similar powers, it's not so impossible a 0-60 in 3,5 secs for the japanese, but it's still a little heavier. but, it could be.

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.
i guess the GT-R is so preceded by his fame that we (well, they) want it to be superb whatever it takes. the simply fact that is the first gt-r truly commercialized out of Japan probably are over-exiting a lot of journalists and enthusiasts, like if they don't want do be disappointed at all. sure this car is fast, but this is just too much. i already expressed my ideas btw.
if i try to be nice with the gt-r, i could say that an italian magazine managed to sprint a 430 from 0 to 64 in 3,6 seconds. given a little advantage to the nissan for the AWD and the DSG, and a little advantage to the 430 for the amazing electronic differential (and also a really fast gearbox), since the cars have similar powers, it's not so impossible a 0-60 in 3,5 secs for the japanese, but it's still a little heavier. but, it could be.

But many have tested the GT-R and have verified the 0-60 claim.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

But many have tested the GT-R and have verified the 0-60 claim.

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

Not sure about that.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Not sure about that.

about what?

[h22a]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

so i guess my 430-GT R comparison was right.
but those car were imported from J, right? it's a news of this days that the US spec and EU spec GTRs are going to be tunned in a different (maybe better, their opinion) way with probably a better handling, even if it shouldn't affect the 0-60 time appreciably.

unless you can provide some sort of evidence that US spec GTR's are different to EU spec, assumptions are useless.
I doubt all tests have been done with Japanese delivered nissans

[kingofthering]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

these stuff are all already existing, while the dsg for the veyron was the first with 7 gears, and such a torque to handle, and it's a real engineering task to dissipate that amount of heat generated by the powertrain with 13 radiators in a car relatively small. avoiding the car to take off is another big problem, stopping it at 400 km/h is another one, avoiding all the mechanisms to destroy themselves for the power and torque, the same for brakes and tires...that was my point.
what you quote are stuff i would call "mechanical technology" that is to say tasks of construction or production matters. but imo the GT-R simply use, maybe first time on a "production car", already existing technology for other applications



that would be only another test, but if an engine developed a certain power, if the process of building it doesn't have some problems (machineries supposed to built the engine are electronically controlled so you can know if there was some problem) there aren't reasons to say other engines built by the same machineries develop different powers. and i'm pretty sure almost every engine is tested (as for any other mobile parts) just to see if it works before to mount it on the car. in this way you can reduce the researching area if you find any problem.

Ahh... but the key ingredient is price; the GT-R brings all those fancy-schmancy gizmos to a price that the average Joe, with a bit of saving-up, could buy. Unlike the Bugatti, which costs as much as 10 GT-Rs and requires a special invitation.

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Well one way to settle the argument would be to put the GT-R on a dyno and figure out how much real wheel hp it has.

Or rip the engine out of the bay and see how much it puts out.

It already does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds, give or take.

I find it hard to believe too, doing the Nurburgring in that time. But since it already does 0-60 in that time, I don't have much to doubt.

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

I thought it was 510 or something.

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

Motor Trend found that it was significantly higher than 480 at the crank. Something closer to 600.

Originally Posted by Kitdy

I thought it was 510 or something.

Yeah, they said it felt way higher than 480. I think Car and Driver said the same too.

Are manufacturers allowed to underestimate the power figures?

[kingofthering]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

Yeah, they said it felt way higher than 480. I think Car and Driver said the same too.

Are manufacturers allowed to underestimate the power figures?

Yes. The Japanese did it for years; according to Fleet500, so did the Americans, but that's a bit disputed.

[Kitdy]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

Yes. The Japanese did it for years; according to Fleet500, so did the Americans, but that's a bit disputed.

The American car manufactures did under quote, but since they did and they also used Gross HP, their claimed ratings were probably somewhat close to the Net HP of said engines.

Or maybe not.

Anyways, it was sorta like an over quote and under quote at the same time if you think in terms if Net HP.

[P4g4nite]

Leon, what the heck is this thread about? besides a collection of your finest GTR conspiracy theories.

[clutch-monkey]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

thank you for you kind words.
my opinions, based on what I have learned in my engineering career up to now, would not be swayed by your "arguments" since they aren't different from so many others i have already heard, and typical of who doesn't know what he is talking about, as Murphy said.
i hoped to have an interesting and technical conversation with someone, but it seems you were the wrong individual. at first i would've liked to know about your technical and/or engineering background, if any, but this was before you started to make shallow, childish and, in the end, offensive comments.

he's right so far as i can see though.
going by your argument, you could say GM's LS7 is pushing engine technology foward because they made it all lighter and more fuel efficient.
never mind those are metallurgical advances

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

i would probably doubt even that 0-60 time.
i don't know the source but if this test was made on a 1/4 mile race track, the time is surely affected by the tires deposited on the track surface.

because no-one else tests 0-60 times at drag strips, right?

[john14]

I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

[h22a]

Originally Posted by john14

I believe many European, American and Australian people don't like the Nissan Skyline GT-R just because it's an Asian car. I hate the fact that so many Europeans, Americans and Australian are so biased to cars from their own continent and think cars that were made, designed and engineered in other continents are really bad. That attitude stinks.

take it easy bro. its only a select group of narrow minded people hating on the GTR. I can assure you the majority off people on UCP probably like the GTR, just not the hype following it.
chill out on the sweeping statements