2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

  • Thread starter emad
  • 3,050 comments
  • 150,660 views
manufacturer talks about thier dynos reading fly wheel hp

:rolleyes:

a quote from the website: http://www.dynapackusa.com/vehicle.htm

TC Factor - allows user to enter a driveline loss factor (Transmission Correction) to add a percentage of power to the flywheel power graphs. A factor of 1.0 adds no correction factor, a factor of 1.15 would add a 15% correction factor to the flywheel numbers. Axle (rear wheel) numbers are not effected by the TC Factor box.

so per the manufacturers site the "flywheel" hp in that dyno chart with a TCF of 1, clearly has not been run though the correction factor and this is not the true flywheel hp.

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)
Uhhh tranny loss is a manually entered factor and is not assigned by the dyno in any way. Any error in that case is purely human error :dunce:
 
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.

we will soon see when it gets independantly tested. Also the dyno used plays a big factor.

On one dyno a car can post figures of 400hp, but then on another make it could only manage 350hp. I dont know if the dyno used is a quality one, if it isnt the power will seem higher than it really is.
 
Or, it could only manage 300HP. You forgetting that bad/misadjusted dynos could underrate an engine, too?

You know what, Perhaps the only way you'd be satisfied with anything on this car is if we took the engine down to somewhere like CAT's Mossville Tech Center and ran it on one of their Dynos, and you saw it for yourself that it makes whatever power it does. Hell, you may be right in this case. Those Dynos at Mossville are guaranteed to be accurate up to 1,000HP or more. Actually, Cat Truck Engine Dealers have chassis dynos for big rigs that are just as accurate. (According to my tour guide at Mossvile Engine Plant)

It's getting awfully irritating that you seem to take every chance you can to take a shot at this car. What, are you afraid that Import fanboys will start coming in and irritating the hell out of everyone? If that happened, we'd prove them just as wrong as anyone.

Fact is, we'll have to wait until January at the soonest, so let's stop making guesses and terming them as actual fact.
 
:rolleyes:

a quote from the website: http://www.dynapackusa.com/vehicle.htm

TC Factor - allows user to enter a driveline loss factor (Transmission Correction) to add a percentage of power to the flywheel power graphs. A factor of 1.0 adds no correction factor, a factor of 1.15 would add a 15% correction factor to the flywheel numbers. Axle (rear wheel) numbers are not effected by the TC Factor box.

so per the manufacturers site the "flywheel" hp in that dyno chart with a TCF of 1, clearly has not been run though the correction factor and this is not the true flywheel hp.

so let me get this right even the company who make the dyno dont even know how it works!! :lol: thats awesome.

Uhhh tranny loss is a manually entered factor and is not assigned by the dyno in any way. Any error in that case is purely human error :dunce:

erm no its not,dynos ive seen(and ive seen alot of different makes including dynopacks comical results) do the power run reading the power to the wheels then when the car is running down it registers the mechanical drag and converts it into the flywheel power and then displays that at the end.
 
so let me get this right even the company who make the dyno dont even know how it works!! :lol: thats awesome.

What I believe he's pointing out is that the "TCF" box on the dyno chart posted above says "1.00", meaning that there has been no adjustment for transmission losses and so, where it says "Flywheel hp" it is actually reading an unadjusted wheel hp rating. So it is the wheel power that is rated at 482PS - engine power could well be rated at 550+ if a transmission loss factor was taken into account.

erm no its not,dynos ive seen(and ive seen alot of different makes including dynopacks comical results) do the power run reading the power to the wheels then when the car is running down it registers the mechanical drag and converts it into the flywheel power and then displays that at the end.

That's not the same as a dyno though - that's a rolling road, which reverse-calculates engine power.

But most of the rolling roads I've seen work on a standard 15% FWD, 17% RWD, 25% 4WD figure.
 
What I believe he's pointing out is that the "TCF" box on the dyno chart posted above says "1.00", meaning that there has been no adjustment for transmission losses and so, where it says "Flywheel hp" it is actually reading an unadjusted wheel hp rating. So it is the wheel power that is rated at 482PS - engine power could well be rated at 550+ if a transmission loss factor was taken into account.

if you follow the links you will see that even members on the other forums doubt its power and the reliablity of the dynopack.if i was to believe the dynopack then my mates leon cupra would be producing 398FWHP with a turbo rated at 350bhp.....which has been detuned to 330ish bhp because he doesnt want an air condictioned engine block and even 5th gear used one ages ago and that was producing silly figures as well.
and then if you really wanna go there,theres gear ratios to take into consideration too.
another big factor with this dyno ( atleast this is true for wheel dynos ) if you look at the speed where peak hp was found it was at 148km/h which means the dyno was in 3rd gear. the gear ratio to the gt-r puts 3rd gear at 1.59. the car should be dynoed in 5th gear which is its 1.00 gear.
 
if you follow the links you will see that even members on the other forums doubt its power and the reliablity of the dynopack.

Which is neither here nor there. The point was that the graph stated "Flywheel" but, with a transmission conversion factor of 1.00, it was actually stating "Wheel" (assuming it to be a rolling road type "dyno").

Our opinions of varying companies are irrelevant. The only point was that the graph showed wheel power, claiming to be at 482PS.


and then if you really wanna go there,theres gear ratios to take into consideration too.

Quite so. Gearboxes are torque multipliers after all. This is why engine dynos are preferred for willy-wavers (since no-one really cares about flywheel power) and wheel power should always be measured in one-below-top gear.
 
Well, Like I said earlier, the only way to know about Nissan's rating for sure would be to take the engine to some research facility, (or a school with a good dyno) and run it out of the car according to SAE gross test procedures. Thus, you'd get either roughly the manufacturer's rating, or, if Nissan is underrating the engine, (Insurance companies hate this,) more power.

On My Nova, the only reasonable gear to run it in would be high gear, or third, since it doesnt' have an overdrive...and anyone following me down a hill knows it. (No brakes, and he's still doing the speed limit? what the hell?)
 
and just to mess up things even more, GT-R is geared pretty agressively. 5th gear is close to 1.00, and sixth is slight overdrive.. which probably leads to GT-R getting a gas guzzler reputation in the US..
 
and just to mess up things even more, GT-R is geared pretty agressively. 5th gear is close to 1.00, and sixth is slight overdrive.. which probably leads to GT-R getting a gas guzzler reputation in the US..

heard they hit the limiter in 4th! Cant wait to get rid of that and see what it can do!
 
Apparently, but I know I read somewhere that the GPS in the GT-R's a bit clever, so if it senses you're off the road (say, at a track for a track day), the limiter is removed). I believe it was Evo, I'll have to check...

Though I thought it was odd, I'd assume that it would just remove the limiter anywhere outside of Japan...
 
Apparently, but I know I read somewhere that the GPS in the GT-R's a bit clever, so if it senses you're off the road (say, at a track for a track day), the limiter is removed). I believe it was Evo, I'll have to check...

Though I thought it was odd, I'd assume that it would just remove the limiter anywhere outside of Japan...

I'm pretty sure that the limiter will only be on Japanese market versions. It would be commercial suicide to sell a car in Europe and the USA with a 112mph limiter.
 
for all the haters still out there a test of a privately owned GTR:

We know you want the numbers and we're not going to waste your time. Neither is Nissan. Its 2009 GT-R hits 60 mph in 3.3 seconds, quicker than the last Dodge Viper, Corvette Z06 and Porsche 911 Turbo we tested. Keep your foot pinned, and after another tap on the upshift paddle it will clear the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at more than 120 mph.

We know this because we've just returned from Japan where we tested a privately owned GT-R on an airstrip outside Tokyo. The car we tested was a Japanese-spec example with 1,500 break-in kilometers on its odometer. It's owned by Japanese journalist Jun Nishikawa and packs the same hardware the U.S. car will get: a 3.8-liter twin-turbo V6 that generates at least 473 horsepower and 434 pound-feet of torque. It had the same six-speed dual-clutch automated manual gearbox and the same adjustable dampers which, by now, you've read plenty about.

What you likely haven't heard about is this: launch control. Despite its bold 3.5-second 0-60-mph claim, Nissan has been keeping this little bit of technological wizardry a secret. Test a GT-R in the homeland, however, and the need for confidentiality is quickly overwhelmed by the need for speed.

Controlling the Launch
Activating the GT-R's launch control is a matter of configuring its transmission, dynamics control and damping adjustments properly. The transmission and damping switches must both be set to the R mode and the VDC must be switched off completely by holding the VDC-R button down for a few seconds. Then it's just a matter of pinning the brake with your left foot and wooding the throttle with your right, not unlike the technique used to produce a tire-shredding burnout in that '85 Camaro you drove in high school.

The result, however, is quite different. The computer holds the engine at 4,500 rpm and waits for you to lift your left foot off the brake pedal. When you do the GT-R produces the most crushing acceleration of virtually any production car in the world. Our test was conducted on a fairly low-grip surface that produced lots of rear wheelspin before the GT-R's sophisticated all-wheel-drive system engaged the front wheels and it thundered down the track. Its 3.3-second 0-60-mph run and 11.6 at 120.9 mph performance make the GT-R the quickest car we've ever tested.

It's even quicker than the Porsche 911 Turbo Tiptronic, but not by much. The German hits 60 mph in 3.4 seconds and blasts through the quarter-mile in 11.6 at 118.5 mph. Due to their lack of all-wheel drive, the Dodge Viper and Corvette Z06 are held back by traction limitations. Despite its 600-hp V10, the last Viper coupe we tested reached 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and finished the quarter-mile 11.8 at 125.3 mph. The Corvette Z06 isn't even close. Once impressive, its 4.1-second 0-60-mph run and 12-second quarter-mile at 121.8 mph are now well off the pace, which is why Chevy is creating the supercharged Corvette ZR1.

In an effort to preserve its drivetrain and relations with the owner, we only activated the launch control twice, but with a few more attempts to calm the violent wheelspin, the numbers would likely have been even better.

Leave the launch control off and the tranny in R mode, and the car is still sick quick. Sixty mph arrives in 4.0 seconds and the quarter-mile disappears in 12.3 seconds at 120.6 mph. All our testing was completed using manual shifting.

World-Class Braking
It requires 15-inch rotors, six-piston Brembo calipers and sticky Bridgestone Potenza RE070R rubber to bring a 3,836-pound GT-R to rest from 60 mph in only 104 feet. That's only 1 foot longer than the Porsche 911 Turbo equipped with the $8,800 ceramic composite brake package. It's also the same stopping distance as the last Dodge Viper we tested and 2 feet shorter than the Corvette Z06.

Experience tells us that the GT-R's conventional iron rotors aren't going to endure abuse as well as the 911 Turbo's ceramic brakes, but in a one-stop scenario like this, we have no reason to doubt them. With a solid, effective and intuitive pedal, braking confidence is high. Plus, we're guessing future versions of the GT-R will get brakes as advanced as the Porsche's.

Predictable, Accessible Handling
Our makeshift test facility at the AMI Airport near Tokyo didn't allow room for lateral acceleration testing on a skid pad. However, we did set up our standard slalom for comparison. Again, we were somewhat thwarted by the less-than-ideal surface, which had unavoidable painted lines crossing the course.

This served as an opportunity to witness the GT-R's striking at-the-limit composure. Blasting across the bumpy painted lines between cones, you get the sense that this is truly a special car. Its chassis remains composed and it goes exactly where it's pointed despite the ugly surface. There's none of the puckering that comes with driving a Vette or Viper this fast through a slalom. Nor is there the sense that the rear-mounted engine of a 911 Turbo is eventually going to find its way to the front.

The GT-R is versatile, with plenty of control latitude, and the difference between the limit of grip and the limit of control is huge. It's probably the most easily controlled car we've slid sideways between the cones. More importantly, its abilities are far more accessible for the average driver than those of its competition.

At 72.9 mph, it's quicker here than the Z06 and 911 Turbo but can't quite match the huge-tired Viper (74.2 mph). Still, it will be interesting to see how these numbers compare when all three cars are tested at the same place and time.

The Best Part
Perhaps more impressive than the GT-R's brain-cell-punishing acceleration or its stellar handling is its price. At just under $70,000 it's within reach of the upper middle-class enthusiast who insists on spending disproportionate amounts of his income on a car.

Plus, it will take an average driver and hurdle them into a realm of speed they couldn't buy with a 911 Turbo. It's world-class fast and relatively cheap. And that's a hard combination to beat.


linkage: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124017/pageId=133808
 
^ Read that artice, and it was a good write up. They've also included a direct face-off against the 997-T in JDM-land. ;)
 
HAHA! take that, Chevy and Porsche! Godzilla has raised the performance bar like it always has. Let's see who can keep up.. :sly:
 
They probably never tested a Ruf Rt12, which is a little bit quicker. It has to be because it's quicker than a Porsche 911 turbo.

But

A Ruf isn't a production car.
 
It's a modified Porsche, just like Hennessey TT Viper 1000 is modded viper, no more, no less. My personal opinion is that if RUF wants to be a REAL car manufacturer among others, they should make their own cars from scratch instead of modifying existing platforms from Porsche. But, that doesn't actually belong to this thread..
 
It's a modified Porsche, just like Hennessey TT Viper 1000 is modded viper, no more, no less. My personal opinion is that if RUF wants to be a REAL car manufacturer among others, they should make their own cars from scratch instead of modifying existing platforms from Porsche. But, that doesn't actually belong to this thread..
It doesn't, but it still needs to be asdressed. To make it short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUF_(automobile)
RUF Automobile GmbH is a German automobile manufacturer. Rufs are built from unmarked Porsche chassis. When a chassis arrives, RUF builds their own independent work into the car. Because RUF installs many of their own-made parts, the company is recognized as a manufacturer by the German government.
 
well, maybe when time comes, they'll be compared to eachother. Doesn't change the fact that 911 turbo ( aka Beetle Evolution ) is beaten.
 
Yes, Porsche turbo is beaten. But Porsche doesn't have launch control, Porsche doesn't have a double clutch manual gearbox (which give the GT-R a big advantage when shifting gears).
If Porsche should have these "features", it probably will be as fast as the GT-R. Shift tronic is a kind of automatic gearbox, which shifts slower than a double clutch manual gearbox, and a 6-gear manual gearbox only shifts as fast as a human can and as fast as the technology is capable of.

Off topic: Fuf is a manufacturer but not a production car. You can order your Ruf, it's not made on an assembly line. There's a big difference between a manufacturer and a production car.
 
As The Interceptor said Ruf's are production cars, they look like Porsches, and share parts but to say the an Ruf CTR is a Porsche 911 is akin to saying that SEAT Leon is a VW Golf. Sharing parts including the chassis does not make one a modified version of the other, it's all about how they are built.
 
I have to agree, and I hate the Skyline, but playing the 'So what if it can beat a 911 it can't beat a RUF' card is retarded.
 
I have to agree, and I hate the Skyline, but playing the 'So what if it can beat a 911 it can't beat a RUF' card is retarded.
You must have something against me, every time I say something is bad or retarded. This whole thread is about the GT-R and it's achievments. Everybody is telling about how quick it is, how it has beaten Porsches and other cars on the ring and yet you don't say anything. I say only one thing about a Ruf and it's retarded. You stink!


:)

Dave A
As The Interceptor said Ruf's are production cars
He didn't say that. He said that Ruf is a manufacturer, not a production car. To be a production car it has to be produced on an assembly line in a certain quantaty every day. Ruf is only made by hand and only if you order one, that makes it NOT production car.
 
Back