2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[kikie]

WOW! It's better than I expected. Did they realease any info on HP or other specs yet?

Search and you will find (google is such a nice thing) I hope you mean the specifications of the standard GT-R!?

r35 GT-R specs

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

MCR has one too. Oh btw the MCR and Mines Nissan GTR's are standard (besides stickers and badges) though Mines will be unvailing new performance parts in January's Tokyo auto salon.

erm....

Just weeks after its launch, a top tuner has built this stonking modified Nissan GT-R.

Japanese tuner Mines has taken the standard 198mph Nissan GT-R and upgraded the car’s computer, air-filter, exhaust, and also fitted a new suspension and brake package.

And these modifications have helped Nissan’s new supercar lap the Japanese Tsukuba circuit in just 1m 3.1s – five-tenths of a second quicker than a Lamborghini Gallardo.

Although power figures have not been released, the standard twin-turbo V6 in the Nissan GT-R produces 473bhp – 70bhp more than a BMW M3. We’d expect the Mines-tuned car to top 500bhp – and 200mph.

Mines has added a new air scoop, carbon-fibre mirrors and carbon fins on the front spoiler to improve aerodynamics, as seen in these pictures from gtchannel.com.

Although the R35 GTR lapped Tsukuba in 1m 3.1s, the tuners were having problems with the car’s traction control on the day, and reckon they could push for a faster time.

Another obstacle affecting the tuner was the setup of the new Nissan GT-R. Nissan has made the super-coupe tricky to modify by aftermarket tuners.

Building on a history of working with Nissan’s sports coupes, Mines modified an earlier Nissan Skyline model which lapped the Tsukuba circuit in just 57.7s.

The new Nissan GT-R was released in Japan at the end of last month and was received with acclaim.

 

[kikie]

The GT-R Evo will have 530 hp and weigh 100 kg less. This sounds even better than the Mines version.

 

[Div is back]

Mine's can do incredible things:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1_8rvMwhhQ

 

[Jay]

erm....

I got my info from the guys that took many of those pics and talked directly to mines themselves, aswell as giving them a run after the session on the highway (they being in a 800ps Top secret Skyline GTR, outcome obvious). There are some highway pics of it also.


I don't see this 'new air scoop' or carbon mirrors on the pics I have seen.

The GT-R Evo will have 530 hp and weigh 100 kg less. This sounds even better than the Mines version.

Mines version is work in progress, they haven't had the car very long at all.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I don't see this 'new air scoop' or carbon mirrors on the pics I have seen.

carbon can be painted 💡

 

[forza2.0]

edmunds:

For all-round ability, I have no doubt the Nissan is the best car I've ever driven. It is almost as fast as the Porsche — which means it's almost as fast as any car on earth

 

[CDailey]

The new GTR looks much sexier in white and red 👍

 

[Joey D]

Well it didn't take long for GT-R crap to be marketed and sold.

http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php?bl...ious-accesso-1&disp=page&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

 

[McLaren]

Not surprising. You can find the same thing with Ferrari & Porsche.

 

[Joey D]

Yup you can find the same thing with other companies, just look a few threads down.

 

[kikie]

Well it didn't take long for GT-R crap to be marketed and sold.

http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php?bl...ious-accesso-1&disp=page&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Are there people who would really buy stuff like that? [/rhetorical question]

 

[Leonidae]

New GT-R has been dynoed.

Results will be printed in the 12/25 issue of Bestcar. Also said that the limiter came on in 4th gear so there should be more potential.

482 ps (475 hp) and 59.2 kg/m (428 ft-lbs) at the hubs.

 

[Joey D]

My guess is Nissan limited the car for a reason...components would start failing. I don't know how much more potential you could get out of the car.

 

[Leonidae]

And Nissan has said that GT-R's drivetrain loss is around 15%.. after brief calculations that would sum up as about 550ish horses at crank.

 

[YSSMAN]

I had assumed that they were shorting the power figures (at the crank) as well, not a huge surprise. Not bad though, not bad at all.

...Although I still wonder about the life of those "plasma" thingamajigs...

 

[Jim Prower]

Wouldnt' be the first time a manufacturer has "Insurance-rated" their engines...LS6 (454), 426 Hemi come to mind. and, probably, the R34 itsself.

 

[Stevisiov]

I had assumed that they were shorting the power figures (at the crank) as well, not a huge surprise. Not bad though, not bad at all.

...Although I still wonder about the life of those "plasma" thingamajigs...

Thats such a cheap shot, sure you have to get it plasmad once a year. It should only be a problem if it is your everyday car, that said given the car its possible to be an everyday car.

I suppose my choice for an everyday car though, would be the stunning Audi Rs6, now thats a car.

 

[Jay]

482ps at the hubs! Thats great.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

And Nissan has said that GT-R's drivetrain loss is around 15%.. after brief calculations that would sum up as about 550ish horses at crank.

where on earth are you getting 550 at the crank! if you look at the top of the right sheet is says flywheel power!

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

where on earth are you getting 550 at the crank! if you look at the top of the right sheet is says flywheel power!

Yes and no.

Yes, the graph says "flywheel power" up at the top but that power displayed is actually power at the wheels, if you look at the field that says "TCF" you'll notice it is at 1.00 which on a Dynapack dyno is where you insert the value to calculate for any drivetrain loss. If the number is higher than 1.00, then the transmission loss factor is applied so 1.15 would mean an estimated 15% transmission loss, then you would have true flywheel hp but as you can see it is clearly at 1.00 indicating that the GTR is indeed more powerful than published.

 

[niky]

Yes and no.

Yes, the graph says "flywheel power" up at the top but that power displayed is actually power at the wheels, if you look at the field that says "TCF" you'll notice it is at 1.00 which on a Dynapack dyno is where you insert the value to calculate for any drivetrain loss. If the number is higher than 1.00, then the transmission loss factor is applied so 1.15 would mean an estimated 15% transmission loss, then you would have true flywheel hp but as you can see it is clearly at 1.00 indicating that the GTR is indeed more powerful than published.

Damnit! I was about to say the same thing!

But that said, with the 20 inchers on, that would put the power at 440-450 or so on a Dynojet... about right for a "470" hp car.

But if the limiter came on during the dyno-run, that indicates that this is going to be another BMW M3... another car that's impossible to dyno correctly (the Mazdaspeed3 also has similar problems...).

Nice torquey curve there...

 

[YSSMAN]

Thats such a cheap shot, sure you have to get it plasmad once a year. It should only be a problem if it is your everyday car, that said given the car its possible to be an everyday car.

Cheap shot? How so?

Nissan wants to tout this as an everyday supercar, it damn-well better be able to be driven 12,000 to 15,000 miles a year for years on end without requiring regular maintenance that isn't (or shouldn't) be necessary. Take the Corvette, that will happily go everyday, as will the 911, and neither require any special attention for "plasma fills" in the cylinder walls.

I give Nissan a lot of credit for building a fast car, but I wholeheartedly disagree with their decision to use this system on the engine...

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Thats such a cheap shot, sure you have to get it plasmad once a year.

and where did you get this information?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Yes and no.

Yes, the graph says "flywheel power" up at the top but that power displayed is actually power at the wheels, if you look at the field that says "TCF" you'll notice it is at 1.00 which on a Dynapack dyno is where you insert the value to calculate for any drivetrain loss. If the number is higher than 1.00, then the transmission loss factor is applied so 1.15 would mean an estimated 15% transmission loss, then you would have true flywheel hp but as you can see it is clearly at 1.00 indicating that the GTR is indeed more powerful than published.

15% tranny lose on a 4wd car now thats comedy for you.(15% is around the same as a fwd or rwd car but not a 4wd car) in fact from pervious experiences on various rolling roads/dynos that if it is 485 at the wheels then that would be around 560ish but i tend to believe a graph labelled fly wheel power graph as its rather obvious and rolling roads tend to convert mechanical drag when the revs are going down after a power run and then display that power figure.

in fact if you do abit of research dynapacks have been known to have rather unreliable performance figure claims.

 

[forza2.0]

Sceptical about the dyno power if its a manufacturer owned vehicle. They have tendencies to up the power for demo cars intented for the media. Alot of manufacturers apparently do so.

 

[Dave A]

Your sceptical about everything about this car.

If this cars power is hiked, then without proof, every cars power is hiked that doesn't have anything to prove otherwise.

 

[Tornado]

15% tranny lose on a 4wd car now thats comedy for you.

That is true. As far as I was aware, AWD power loss is closer to 25%, with around 17% being RWD.

Sceptical about the dyno power if its a manufacturer owned vehicle. They have tendencies to up the power for demo cars intented for the media. Alot of manufacturers apparently do so.

Yeah, like the Ford GT. And the Mustang SVT Cobra. And the Mercedes SL55 AMG. And the Dodge Neon SRT-4.
Seriously, just go away. You haven't raised a competent point throughout this entire thread, and all you end up doing is make holdenhsvgtrs' well thought out arguments look dumb by association.
You are incredibly biased against the Skyline. We get it. No need to constantly say how Nissan does this and that every chance you get. especially when there is almost always more proof to the contrary of what you are saying than there is to support you.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

15% tranny lose on a 4wd car now thats comedy for you.(15% is around the same as a fwd or rwd car but not a 4wd car) in fact from pervious experiences on various rolling roads/dynos that if it is 485 at the wheels then that would be around 560ish but i tend to believe a graph labelled fly wheel power graph as its rather obvious and rolling roads tend to convert mechanical drag when the revs are going down after a power run and then display that power figure.

in fact if you do abit of research dynapacks have been known to have rather unreliable performance figure claims.

If drivetrain loss is even more than 15% the car would be even more powerful than 550-ish... That dynapack is running an older version of the dyno software, newer versions enable you to correct that error. In fact if you dont believe me then feel free to ask any dynapack owner or even better contact the manufacturer.

Also feel free to double check over at GTR.co.UK

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/88274-r35-gtr-dynoed-482bhp-hubs.html

who says dynapacks are unreliable? Because the results dont agree with you you would just rather use another dyno? And I supose all those shops world wide who happen to use the same dyno are all a bunch of baboons and you know better?

Not only that but first you complain about the ring time, now your complaining about they dyno done at autobacs by a customer in a retail version GTR, I suppose the next dyno result to come up will be horribly wrong too?

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

If drivetrain loss is even more than 15% the car would be even more powerful than 550-ish... That dynapack is running an older version of the dyno software, newer versions enable you to correct that error. In fact if you dont believe me then feel free to ask any dynapack owner or even better contact the manufacturer.

manufacturer talks about thier dynos reading fly wheel hp

who says dynapacks are unreliable? Because the results dont agree with you you would just rather use another dyno? And I supose all those shops world wide who happen to use the same dyno are all a bunch of baboons and you know better?

alot of people if you search it,in fact quick alot of tuners have bought dynopacks then after a while binned them and went back to the good old rollers as the dynopacks were bring up silly numbers (for example 5% tranny lose on an impreza and as you claim a 15% tranny lose on a gtr)

Not only that but first you complain about the ring time, now your complaining about they dyno done at autobacs by a customer in a retail version GTR, I suppose the next dyno result to come up will be horribly wrong too?

erm no i didnt