2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

one set of tyres is similar to the ones used in Lotus exige, hardly pure slicks,

Erm the Lotus Exige uses Yokohama Advan A048,hardly anything close to Bridgestone RE070R's or Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST's.

 

[///M-Spec]

:sigh:

The ADVAN A048 is classified as a "DOT-Legal Competition Tire" in the US. Meaning it uses a race compound and meets only the bare minimum requirements to be street-worthy.

It is delivered with 6/32 inches of tread. Look at the images in the link below as well as the ad copy and you will see it is a track-day tire.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Yokohama&tireModel=ADVAN+A048

The Potenza RE070R RFT is an "extreme" performance street tire. Meaning it uses a compromised super-high performance street compound but features full tread depth. It should wear much better than an "R-comp" tire, be decent when it rains but have much lower limits than an R-comp.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Bridgestone&tireModel=Potenza+RE070R+RFT

Bottom line is the A048 is a far more aggressive tire than the RE070R RFT. Anyone who has ever driven on R-comp tires will know the difference. R-comps are so sticky, they pick up loose pebbles and fling them in the wheel wells as you drive. When you stop, the tire is covered with all manner of road debris. And while you are driving, there is enough grip to fling your eyeballs from their sockets.

If you want to compare the RE070R to, say a Pilot Sport, it looks like it sits between the two models. In other words, stickier than a PS2, but not as extreme as a Cup.


M

 

[wrcsti]

Guys, we all know nissan sent some "special" GTRs to almost all magazines in the begining that ran 11 second 1/4 miles and took turns like hell, but now sudendly they are running high 12 second 1/4 miles but still taking turns like hell.

 

[Greycap]

I'm not entirely sure if the above post is sarcasm, or even more concerning, a serious post. The first UK magazine tests were done with a privately imported Japan spec GT-R, not some specially tweaked model directly from Nissan. The difference may well be the US fuel used in the more recent American tests, it's a bit lower rated due to emission ratings, gives a bit less power, results in a bit lower performance. Without any changes to the car. It was actually tested in the UK, they filled one GT-R with the new 102 octane BP fuel, dynoed it and got some 520 bhp from a car that only puts out around 480 bhp on "normal" premium fuel which probably is 97 octane.

 

[wrcsti]

102 octane? we get 93 in florida and we're lucky, other states get a max by law of 91. It was a serious post and I get my info from the latest magazine that did a comparison of a couple of very fast sport cars, can't recall if it was car and driver or motortrend.

And what if nissan had the first lets say 400 GTRs with a high performance tune. Kinda what BMW did with the N54 cars now exept bmw did it because of the M3 and piggyback tunes on their cars.

 

[YSSMAN]

To avoid confusion... European fuel standards are different than the US counterparts, and consequently, as I recall 102 octane across the pond is roughly equal to that of the 97 octane in the US. And personally speaking, I don't think these minor differences in fuel quality are going to account for large fractions of a second in measurements whatsoever... Like we've discussed in other threads, there are far too many variables to count when making measurements on a car.

Clarkson's run of the GT-R on Sunday was fairly on-point. Its a wonderful car, and it is distinctly Japanese. Its not going to appeal to everyone (I'd be in the unappealing category), but Nissan doesn't care. They're going to sell every damn one they build, all while laughing as everyone freaks out trying to catch up (makes you wonder how much cash they dumped into the program?).

The full GT-R test, if I'm not mistaken, is this Sunday on Top Gear. I'll be very interested to see how it does on their track...

 

[Greycap]

Still it defies the point of specially prepared GT-R's sent for the magazines, which is what I wanted to address.

There are enough variables in the world to cause the said difference without doing that. Even running the quarter mile as the first test of the day with a reasonably cool engine and tyres gives a significantly different result from running it after several hotlaps. Not to mention temperature changes, it's summer now and a turbo engine likes cool air. Or even the fact that all tests don't use the launch control that alone shaves almost half a second off the time. Everything has an effect, while that effect may be small the difference between, for example, an 11.9 time and an 12.2 time isn't huge either. Just a bit over two car lengths. The slightly lower spec US fuel combined to a hot summer day and no launch control can easily push the times above 12.5 and the car can be the exact same one that ran 11.8 on a cool spring day with European fuel and the launch control activated.

 

[Tornado]

And personally speaking, I don't think these minor differences in fuel quality are going to account for large fractions of a second in measurements whatsoever...

This I disagree with, simply because we don't no what the fuel spread difference is. When the American magazines were testing the cars in Europe they were surprised at how fast they were. That may have been on the equivalent to 97 Octane in the U.S. When they started testing U.S. spec cars, they were probably using the suggested pump gas. What is the GTR rated for in that respect? Premium? Because if a 4 octane spread drops 40 HP off of the car as Greycap mentions, if the GTR tests were conducted with 89 octane I could see the difference being a result of that, more or less.

 

[Greycap]

Yep, for those who may disagree with me here's the link.

GT-R on BP Ultimate Unleaded 102

Actually three interesting things in those pictures. First the text "this car is Ben's personal import" in the first one, shooting down the theory of specially prepped cars. Second the actual power figure of 520 bhp, confirming the power gain from the fuel. Third the power figure at the wheels, shooting down the theory of the quoted 480 bhp being a wheel horsepower figure.

 

[Famine]

On the fuel issue, I've posted this before but shall reiterate...

UK fuel standards are the Research Octane Number (RON). RON involves testing at a certain set of laboratory conditions. Typical fuel is 95RON, Super Unleaded is 97-99RON and BP Ultimate 102 is 102 RON.

US fuel standards are the Pump Octane Number (PON, AKI [Anti Knock Index] or simply "Octane"). This requires knowledge of both RON and MON (Motor Octane Number) - which also involves testing at a certain set of laboratory conditions. PON = (RON+MON)/2. MON generates an 8-10 point lower number than RON, so PON is generally 4-5 points lower than RON. 95RON in the UK could be 91 Octane in the US


In many ways, Octane/PON is more reliable than RON alone. MON represents real-world conditions far better than RON, and with the PON rating you know what the RON and MON ratings are. 91 Octane gas in the US is likely to be 95RON and 87MON. 95RON petrol in the UK could be 95RON but 1MON and shag your car up good and proper.

 

[Leonidae]

IMO, that should be pinned somewhere in order to avoid repeating it over and over again..

 

[wrcsti]

I get what all of you say, but the difference was so much that it has started to make me question its "supremeness". from a high 11 to a high 12 theres not much to change that unless they were drag racing on ice.

 

[McLaren]

I get what all of you say, but the difference was so much that it has started to make me question its "supremeness". from a high 11 to a high 12 theres not much to change that unless they were drag racing on ice.

As far as I've seen, multiple sources have reached a mid-to-high 11 second time. Car & Driver is the only one I've seen hitting a 12 second time.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Sunoco does (or at least did) offer 100-octane fuel here in the states, however, it was Turbo Blue or whatver the heck. Pretty sure it was leaded...

Anyhow... I've NEVER heard of a production vehicle that benefits from higher octane fuel by much. If a car is tuned from the factory for 91 octane, 93 or higher will post very little to no power gain as most vehicles don't change the timing and such to take advantage of the added detonation resistance.

So why would the GT-R?

All that can really explain 30-40hp extra is more boost. Unless of course the car was rated with timing that is EXTREMELY conservative.

 

[YSSMAN]

As far as I've seen, multiple sources have reached a mid-to-high 11 second time. Car & Driver is the only one I've seen hitting a 12 second time.

That, as I recall, was on their third test car. The first (solo) was matching most of the figures, the second (against the M3 and such) did the same. The third (against the Corvette, Viper, 911) was having issues... That they noted fairly clearly, and said "we'll look into it."

I think we're going to have to expect some inconsistencies across the board, all having to do with mileage, abuse, where they're testing the cars, etc. But generally speaking, its a matter of throwing all of the proper switches and someone like my Mother can hit 60 MPH is well under 4.0 seconds.

Its interesting that Clarkson noted the American test that said the car was making more power in the GT-R test on Sunday. I'm very, very interested to see what kind of times they can come up with elsewhere.

 

[the Interceptor]

Anyhow... I've NEVER heard of a production vehicle that benefits from higher octane fuel by much. If a car is tuned from the factory for 91 octane, 93 or higher will post very little to no power gain as most vehicles don't change the timing and such to take advantage of the added detonation resistance.

So why would the GT-R?

Why wouldn't it? Even with my 12 year old BMW, it says in the manual that you can feed it any petrol available (92 to 98 octane), and the engine electronics will automatically alter the settings appropriate to the octane count of fuel. So with a modern, high-powered turbo engine that detects fuel quality and works accordingly, I don't see why you couldn't gain such an amount of power.

 

[niky]

can't you read? the both tyres are offered on GT-R. one set of tyres is similar to the ones used in Lotus exige, hardly pure slicks, and other set is all-seasons, that sacrifice a bit in terms of performance. sheesh.. don't get exited..

hehehe...

I think the slick reference was just a joke.

Anyway, the question needs to be raised why the standard GT-R is on the grippier tires while the upcoming improved versions of the car use the allrounders. I always thought that you make a standard model with standard tyres and sacrifice wet performance for dry grip with the more powerful models; as to be seen in the BMW M3 / M3 CSL.

Indeed... it was just a jibe... thought it would be a nice way to reopen the thread... and, yes, the question is... why did they put the all-weathers on the premium model? Unless the felt that those who were serious about tracking the GT-R would buy the cheaper one and skip the luxuries?

As far as I've seen, multiple sources have reached a mid-to-high 11 second time. Car & Driver is the only one I've seen hitting a 12 second time.

Didn't they turn launch control off just because "the other cars don't have launch control"? That's enough to explain the difference...

RE: GT-R Dyno: Without knowing the dyno-model, we really don't know how big that number really is. Remember, thanks to the Dynojet, some dyno manufacturers releasing new models have calibrated their dynos high to read similar to Dynojets. I've already posted before how Dynapacks tend to read much higher than other dynos (otherwise, how could I lose 20 hp between the Dynapack and the Dynojet and Dastek?). I'm not familiar with the make of the dyno, and it's not displayed on the screen, so we'll have to take that with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Found out... it's a Dastek.

Now here's something in relation to what I've said before... I'm very familiar with the Dastek dyno, as I've witnessed dozens of dyno-runs on this system on dozens of cars, both as a customer and now, as a chip-tuner in training.

With the Dastek, you have to realize a couple of things... there's a calibration factor that's dependent on the installer. Ours is finally calibrated, so it's okay, but I've seen wildly high numbers from Dastek installations elsewhere when they forget to calibrate the machine.

Thankfully, calibration is easy, and a good shop should have the calibration equipment. And, unlike the Dynapack, you don't have to guesstimate drive ratios and wheel sizes to get correct figures. You just put it on the dyno and go.

Anyway, in practice, our Dastek reads similar to a Dynojet, which reads some 10% or more higher than a US Mustang Dyno.

So considering these guys actually know what they're doing, and have calibrated properly using Dastek factory procedures, that's still a big difference from the Mustang... In fact... crunches numbers... at a 10% difference (which is the smallest the difference can possibly be), that's... wait for it....



411.93 hp on a Mustang.

Which is nearly exactly what Edmunds got on the Mustang.

Again, unless you're familiar with the differences in dyno hardware, you should never estimate bhp from whp.

This is another dyno that'll get the conspiracy theorists raving, but it doesn't prove anything except that BP Ultimate probably doesn't give you any extra power on the GT-R... ...okay... maybe 3 hp more than the GT-R got in America... but still... that's pathetic.

And if you're still not convinced, look at this picture:

Note those two black dots?

Those two black dots are the only places where they took readings at.

Unlike an inertial dyno, the Dastek is a brake dyno. To take a reading, you rev the car on the dyno, brake it at a certain rpm (that's your black dot) and record specific hp at that rpm.

Note that there's no black dot at the top?

Yup. The 520 bhp is inferred, not recorded.

Shame on the shop for doing that. When you see that your estimated peak is not at a recorded site, you should record at all the rpm sites close to it to confirm. They didn't. They just did two pulls and called it a day.

Totally bogus.

 

[Greycap]

Damn it.

Oh well, in fact it does actually prove one thing which is better than nothing. It proves that the theory (well liked by GT-R dislikers to downplay its performance) of the quoted 480 bhp being a wheel figure and the engine actually making 550+ bhp is total nonsense.

 

[wrcsti]

Sunoco does (or at least did) offer 100-octane fuel here in the states, however, it was Turbo Blue or whatver the heck. Pretty sure it was leaded...

Anyhow... I've NEVER heard of a production vehicle that benefits from higher octane fuel by much. If a car is tuned from the factory for 91 octane, 93 or higher will post very little to no power gain as most vehicles don't change the timing and such to take advantage of the added detonation resistance.

So why would the GT-R?

All that can really explain 30-40hp extra is more boost. Unless of course the car was rated with timing that is EXTREMELY conservative.

They still have those at some places (one about 30 miles from my house, 91, 93, 100, 108 FTW ). But it is exactly what I want to get across. The car will try and take advantage of the ost minimal thing including octanage. Wonder what a toulene mix would do here .

 

[YSSMAN]

Damn it.

Oh well, in fact it does actually prove one thing which is better than nothing. It proves that the theory (well liked by GT-R dislikers to downplay its performance) of the quoted 480 bhp being a wheel figure and the engine actually making 550+ bhp is total nonsense.

It doesn't defeat the claims of higher power outputs completely, however. Even if they're assuming a 412 WHP figure, we've still got to figure in a 20-30% drive train loss at the crank, which pushes those figures into the 500+ BHP range. Like Car and Driver pointed out, they're still befuddled by the differences in the cars they've driven... And this isn't something that's going to be easily sorted out.

 

[GTR DUDE]

the price range is about 100,000 to 120,000 then fully loaded probably 126,000
but the gtr right now isn't really worth buying they have no or barely and aftermarket stuff for it then its just a show car for right now i mean thought it still has horse power

 

[Leonidae]

YSSMAN, why is it so difficult to believe that Nissan actually might be telling the truth and the drivetrain loss is only 10-15%?

 

[///M-Spec]

YSSMAN, why is it so difficult to believe that Nissan actually might be telling the truth and the drivetrain loss is only 10-15%?

Well, think about it: when was the last time Nissan was perfectly honest about how much power a GT-R makes?

They really only have themselves to blame for all this second-guessing.


M

 

[Joey D]

Also isn't the average drivetrain loss on an AWD something like 20-25%?

 

[YSSMAN]

^ What Joey said... I'm going by what tends to be the common occurrence in drrivetrain loss...

 

[the Interceptor]

I think I read somewhere the other day that the GT-R has less powertrain losses compared to the average value. I don't know where that was, so I can't back it up though. Sorry.

 

[Greycap]

Not the old "Nissan lies every time and the others are saints" argument again.

The last time Nissan was perfectly honest about the output of a GT-R was before it made more power than the Japanese gentleman agreement of 280 horses. Incidentally, it was also the last time when Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi told the truth - until it was lifted, that is. Who remembers that an Evo VIII made way over 300 bhp, nobody. Nobody even cares. And still it was just as much of a lie to call it a 280 horsepower car. But it apparently doesn't matter.

When the GT-R accelerated "too well" for its power some people immediately said Nissan is a liar and that the quoted 480 bhp is a wheel figure. When the car was dynoed and found to make about 400 bhp at the wheels those people swiftly changed their aim to the launch control system. When it was found out that the said system does nothing but dumps the clutch at a certain engine speed they changed their aim to the four wheel drive system. The system is old technology, it's been around since the late eighties. After that they picked the traction control to question...

In short, no matter what, there are people who will hate and bash the GT-R with all their might. Just because it's a GT-R. Nobody can change the situation. Maybe this really is the car that is technologically just as advanced as it's said to be. The one that makes impossible things possible. Maybe it has superbly effective bearings in the drivetrain, gearbox cogs cut with extreme precision to lower friction, maybe it's just better than its competitors.

Or then not. But I still don't understand why Nissan can't be innocent until proven guilty like all other manufacturers.

If the past means so much we shouldn't believe GM either, the output of the 427 engine in the muscle car era was a lot higher than it was said to be. Using the same logics that are applied to Nissan that makes GM a liar and every achievement of the new Corvette is false. Naturally nobody's going to think like that because it would be pretty damn stupid but it's still done when it's Nissan that is being discussed. Quite, err, exotic.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Who remembers that an Evo VIII made way over 300 bhp, nobody.

I do Dont you remember the FQ-300,FQ-320, FQ-340, and FQ-400. (305, 320, 340, and 400 bhp)

 

[Greycap]

Yes, the UK spec cars which naturally never had any limits. In Japan it was said to make that 280 bhp, as was the Evo IX which in reality was closer to 320 bhp but still marketed as having 280 bhp.

 

[///M-Spec]

Not the old "Nissan lies every time and the others are saints" argument again.

You are creating a strawman.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Your insistence that I have a bias against Nissan the company or the GT-R the car, has no merit. It is untrue and irrelevant besides.

I brought up Nissan's historical behavior because it is relevant when understanding the motives of people who question their statements. In simple words: Leo wanted to know why YSSMAN had trouble taking Nissan's word for something. I offered the observation that it has been a long time since they were perfectly truthful about a GT-R's power, so it's no wonder people debate it.

Pointing this out is not the same thing as saying: "I believe Nissan always lies". And it is certainly not saying "at the same time, I believe GM (or Porsche or whoever) always tells the truth".

Your post might have some shred of value if I have shown in the past, through previous posts, that I disbelieve Nissan's horsepower/laptime claims while at the same time drink Porsche or GM's Koolaid without question.

I'll save you the time and effort in searching through my posts for such a "smoking gun", because I can tell you that it hasn't happened. And don't bother digging up a 2 year old, out-of-context post where I posted "I like the Corvette" or "The 911 Turbo is cool" in a pathetic attempt to connect the dots.

So your implication that I have some agenda to advance or a personal opinion on the actual horsepower the new GT-R makes (honestly, I don't) is really just a knee-jerk, grasping at straws (pun intended) reaction which shows that you don't really have any grasp on what I'm saying and are arguing with your feelings rather than your brain.

Let me clue you in on a simple fact of life that you don't seem to understand: You can question a concept, idea, action, or even person without attacking it.

I can question my country's economic or foreign policies without being anti-American.

I can debate the ethical issues of capitalism without being a communist.

I can question whether or not my wife correctly remembered if she put the top back up on my car after she drove it, without being biased against my wife as a person.

The sooner you understand this, the less aggravation you will cause yourself and the rest of us.


M