2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

  • Thread starter emad
  • 3,050 comments
  • 148,027 views
Correct. Let me also correct one thing, I'm not against you, it's just that you usually happen to begin the flow of the posts that take me over the limits.

I'm against certain other people in this thread (and a few other threads too) that decide to believe absolutely nothing about the GT-R but believe everything what GM and Porsche say. It's been seen here. It's just a huge shame that the car isn't taken as what it is, almost every good thing in it has been shot down by someone who has compared it to something that isn't anywhere near the same class.

I even remember a certain member wanting to compare it to a Ferrari 599 and a Mercedes SLR. Why? Because according to his opinion the GT-R must have at least 550 bhp to be that fast - which was proved to be false information - but still I didn't quite get it. Why compare a 480 bhp $100.000 car (ridiculous mark ups included) to cars with around 620 bhp that cost four to six times as much, unless the only point is to see it get beaten and get a good reason to celebrate the defeat? Sadly I have a feeling that that was actually the case.

It may be such a simple thing that some people don't want to admit that the GT-R really is a world class player, thus they do everything they can to make it look bad. If it takes comparisons to cars with almost 35% more power and 15% less weight to beat the GT-R they'll do it and then declare the GT-R is lousy because it lost. The question is, was it even given a sporting chance to succeed? Someone with an unbiased view can see the answer. And probably draw a conclusion. My answer is self-explanatory but I know how the "other side" will take it, I'll get a badge as a GT-R fanboy. I probably have one already in their eyes.

And for those who think I'm a blind GT-R fanboy. No, I'm not. The car is a technical masterpiece for its price tag (hardly debatable) and that's what I'm trying to defend but I wouldn't get one myself even if I had the money. Believe it or not but given unlimited amounts of cash I'd buy some old American muscle car. With an "ancient" pushrod V8. Great cars, just not a match for modern technology anymore.
 
If the car wants to be labeled as a first class world player then it will be scrutinised and criticised quite heavily. Deal with it.

You don't think the ZR-1 has been critised over and over again? Just wait till Porsche brings out their next big thing, it will go down the same road.
 
Not entirely, but I did read some of it and even replied at times. There's a difference in the kind of criticisms though. For the ZR-1, people brought up arguments like Chevrolet is too lazy to make a new engine, so they just use their old pushrod workhorse, slap a supercharger on it and put it into the Vette. That is common Corvette criticism though (could be aimed at any model), and as figures have proved, there's nothing wrong with what GM does.

For the GT-R however, there have been wagonloads of liar-claims about pretty much every part, and for some strange reason, the rank and file just took it for granted. Only few people stood up to them, dug out facts and tests to prove that the car works as advertised. Criticism on the ZR-1 was just average, if not below average, compared to the GT-R.
 
YSSMAN
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.
Click to expand...

Remember, that's an assumed 412 whp (Because we really don't know what the drivetrain losses are, and how high that particular Dastek reads... I've seen Dasteks that read about 10% over ours). From their data points... they only recorded a peak of 439 whp.... which puts it (assuming a 10% loss to the Mustang) at 395. I still hold that that dyno session is crap unless they add more data points.

Drivetrain losses are a conundrum. The actual weight of the drivetrain is not a factor on brake dynos which measure actual power and not acceleration (the Dynojet measures acceleration, which means lightweight mags and flywheels can mess it up). It's frictional drivetrain losses that actually matter. The only issue is, what is the actual loss? Some wag, many decades ago, decided that drivetrain loss was 20%, 25% or 40%, and it became dogma. But anyone who's worked a dyno can tell you that that simply isn't a universal number. Honda drivetrains often lose very little (going by power output)... sometimes showing a loss of only 10-15%, depending on the dyno. Old Miatas had terrible drivetrain losses compared even to other FR cars with similar engines. Heck, Mazdas in general dyno bad.

But we're still not seeing the total picture. All GT-R runs are in third and fourth gear to get around the limiter. We won't know the engine's true output until they can remove the limiter so they can dyno it in 5th gear (closest to 1:1) or someone pulls the engine out and dynos it on a test-stand.

And let's not start on SAE weather correction (also applied in that latest dyno). Correcting for weather? On a turbocharged engine? You're correcting for ambient temperature, humidity and air pressure... for an engine that generates its own air pressure and temperature.

That's why 90% of the tuners out there only give WHP, not "estimated" BHP. Because, as far as you know, that "BHP" could mean bull-HP. And the really honest ones will explain SAE correction numbers to you and tell you that you can't honestly compare between different dynos. And that's why they will always tell you... the actual numbers don't matter. It's how much those numbers change after you've tuned the car that matters.

-----

As for track results... Let's take a look at the Veyron argument for a minute. Who cares how much the car weighs? Once past the point where inertia doesn't make much of a difference (low speeds, say, 0-60 mph), a more powerful car is faster, period. They Veyron absolutely smashes the ultra-lightweight McLaren from 100-150 mph. 1000 bhp versus 620 bhp. Not a contest.

Which is why I'm perfectly comfortable with Nissan's 480 hp claim. Why? Every acceleration test shows that the other, more powerful super-sportscars, are faster at high speeds than the Nissan is. Some marginally, some very. Which means that the GT-R's incredible quarter mile and 0-60 times are likely the results of perfect traction and a very wide torque band. Nothing more, nothing less.

Other people will go: BS! you can't get to 60 mph, 100 mph, 400m, etcetera that fast with so little power. It's mathematically impossible! Well, guess what? Motor magazine got a Fiat Panda 4x4 to 30 mph from a stop in something like 1-2 seconds thanks to AWD. That's the beauty of perfect traction. Doesn't matter how much power the other guy makes... if you're putting yours down first, you win.

Varied times? Car wear (automatics get slower as they age... ATF wear, physical wear, and heat-soak). Hot weather (you can heat soak a turbo car in just minutes given the right weather). Turning TCS off. Tire wear. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the press mules are nearing the end of their shelf life, with the thrashing they're getting.

---

Lying: Laptimes: Old Skyline: "It's not stock... they removed the speed limiter (duh. 180 km/h? What fun is that?)... they chipped it... blah blah blah". That argument could be hurled against any time done by a manufacturer. And claims that "Even though the car is slower when driven by XXX, he's the only guy whose times I trust" don't hold. Michael Schumacher might be one of the most brilliant drivers to take rein on a Ferrari F1 car, but even he's been beaten (not just a few times) when driving other cars in the Race of Champions. In other words, a good driver with tens of thousands of kilometers on the GT-R will likely get a faster time out of it than a somewhat better driver with just a few hundred kilometers on the same car.

-----

Lying: power output: "Gentleman's Agreement." That's why the Supra and Skyline GT-Rs were tuner favorites... Any tuner worth his wrenches could see that there's a big difference between a 2.6 turbo, a 3.0 turbo, a 3.0 "natural" V6 (NSX) and a bunch of 2.0 turbos... some of those cars, with simple tweaking or unlocking, or even bone stock, were making much more power than the stupid 276 hp cap that the manufacturers agreed on.

Nowadays, no "gentleman's agreement"... no problem. Want a 300 bhp Z-car. Sure. Want a near-500 hp GT-R? Go right ahead. Nissan has no reason to artificially cap their cars' on paper output. In fact, giving out good numbers is good press. So much so that Nissan has been burned by overestimating the previous SE-R. It went from 200 bhp (concept) to 185 bhp (pre-production) to 175 bhp and 165 bhp as the car came out.

---

Sure, the GT-R could make more power through some hidden overboost that detects when the car isn't on the dyno. (Uhmm... air-speed? GPS?) And, yeah, Nissan could lie about Ring times, and fabricate vast amounts of telemetry data to back up that claim... but what's the point? George W. Bush could have remotely piloted a bunch of airliners from his X-Box in the Whitehouse and slammed them into the WTC, too, then detonated explosives hidden decades ago in the beams to make them fall down. Yes, it's possible, but what would he stand to gain from it? Conspiracy theorists will have you believe that there's a very logical reason for either action. I'd rather see a smoking gun. :lol:
 
Leonidae
^it's called patriotism.💡
Click to expand...

If that's directed at me, I am not a fan of of many American cars and I'm really not a fan of the new ZR-1.

I'll stick to what I said, any car that wants to be deemed a world class leader in something is going to get put through the ringer. The Veyron experienced it, the ZR-1 experienced it, I bet you any money the new Honda "NSX" and Lexus IF-A are going to go through it. Actually now that I write this every new car goes through this, just to different degrees.

It's fine to be a fan of a car, I'm a fan of the MINI, but at the same time you can't be blinded to issues with it. I'll tell you all day MINI's are overpriced, cost an arm and a leg to maintain, have some major design flaws, etc. As I've said I don't mind the GT-R for it can do, I just don't like it and can't get warm and fuzzy about it. I agree with Top Gear, it seems like it's like a digital camera, a million features but no soul. If I was going to have a Skyline it would be something like this...

skyline475b.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

I almost forgot why I quoted this LOL. The GTR's acceleration is due to the brilliant AWD, it's not cheating or anything, it's the GTR's advantage. Cars in this bracket have loads of power, and if a car can put that down to the ground, then of course it will go like the clappas. Of course, give a great big stonking V8 AWD and it could accelerate like that too, exceed expectations, but I bet it would handle badly in most cases, because of the limitations posed by AWD and the extra weight of a V8 and a front diff over the front.

Greycap
Correct. Let me also correct one thing, I'm not against you, it's just that you usually happen to begin the flow of the posts that take me over the limits.

I'm against certain other people in this thread (and a few other threads too) that decide to believe absolutely nothing about the GT-R but believe everything what GM and Porsche say. It's been seen here. It's just a huge shame that the car isn't taken as what it is, almost every good thing in it has been shot down by someone who has compared it to something that isn't anywhere near the same class.

I even remember a certain member wanting to compare it to a Ferrari 599 and a Mercedes SLR. Why? Because according to his opinion the GT-R must have at least 550 bhp to be that fast - which was proved to be false information - but still I didn't quite get it. Why compare a 480 bhp $100.000 car (ridiculous mark ups included) to cars with around 620 bhp that cost four to six times as much, unless the only point is to see it get beaten and get a good reason to celebrate the defeat? Sadly I have a feeling that that was actually the case.

It may be such a simple thing that some people don't want to admit that the GT-R really is a world class player, thus they do everything they can to make it look bad. If it takes comparisons to cars with almost 35% more power and 15% less weight to beat the GT-R they'll do it and then declare the GT-R is lousy because it lost. The question is, was it even given a sporting chance to succeed? Someone with an unbiased view can see the answer. And probably draw a conclusion. My answer is self-explanatory but I know how the "other side" will take it, I'll get a badge as a GT-R fanboy. I probably have one already in their eyes.

And for those who think I'm a blind GT-R fanboy. No, I'm not. The car is a technical masterpiece for its price tag (hardly debatable) and that's what I'm trying to defend but I wouldn't get one myself even if I had the money. Believe it or not but given unlimited amounts of cash I'd buy some old American muscle car. With an "ancient" pushrod V8. Great cars, just not a match for modern technology anymore.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the GTR would beat a 599 and SLR, those cars are overpriced over fancied cruisers, or at least that's my opinion of them.

You, Greycap, would take the muscle car? Well good for you, sometimes it's more about soul and driving pleasure than simple cornering G forces. I would take the modern car with retro styling- eg. Camaro, Challenger, HDT VE Commodore. If I was really loaded, I'd have everything :D (Except Lancers and WRXs :yuck: :P )
 
Joey D
Actually now that I write this every new car goes through this, just to different degrees.
Click to expand...
This sentence absolutely nailed it. Different degrees. The GT-R has had a huge degree.

I can fully understand pitting the GT-R against the Z06, the 911 Turbo, the 911 GT3. They're the ones it was made to face and the ones it's going to be competing. However, we've seen it being pitted against such cars as the ZR1 and 911 GT2, losing the battle, and then the anti-Nissan crowd going into mental overdrive because the GT-R was beaten.

The same thing could be done the other way round. Pit the Z06 against a Ferrari FXX on track, see it getting beaten very big time, and then draw a conclusion that it's an absolutely hopeless brick of a car because it couldn't keep up. Sure, it lost to a car it was never made to compete with but it lost and that's what matters if we're thinking like the anti-Nissan people.

If that example doesn't enlighten why I think the "no matter what it takes" tests to prove the GT-R isn't for much good are pointless I don't know what does.

nd 4 holden spd
You, Greycrap, would take the muscle car?
Click to expand...
That bolded (by me) part had better be a typing error.

But muscle cars, yes. Or maybe not actual muscle cars, downgrade a bit to pony cars... I'd take a '65 Mustang fastback, a really great looking car that could even be used as a daily driver. Dark blue with white Shelby stripes, please!
 
Greycap
This sentence absolutely nailed it. Different degrees. The GT-R has had a huge degree.

I can fully understand pitting the GT-R against the Z06, the 911 Turbo, the 911 GT3. They're the ones it was made to face and the ones it's going to be competing. However, we've seen it being pitted against such cars as the ZR1 and 911 GT2, losing the battle, and then the anti-Nissan crowd going into mental overdrive because the GT-R was beaten.

The same thing could be done the other way round. Pit the Z06 against a Ferrari FXX on track, see it getting beaten very big time, and then draw a conclusion that it's an absolutely hopeless brick of a car because it couldn't keep up. Sure, it lost to a car it was never made to compete with but it lost and that's what matters if we're thinking like the anti-Nissan people.

If that example doesn't enlighten why I think the "no matter what it takes" tests to prove the GT-R isn't for much good are pointless I don't know what does.


Please tell me the bolded (by me) part is a typing error...

But muscle cars, yes. Or maybe not actual muscle cars, downgrade a bit to pony cars... I'd take a '65 Mustang fastback, a really great looking car that could even be used as a daily driver. Dark blue with white Shelby stripes, please!
Click to expand...

Yes that's a typing error.:ouch: Sorry about that, I'll change it.:dunce: It is kind of funny though.:sly:
 
Greycap
Correct.
Click to expand...

Correct? If you agree with me, then why is the rest of your post just the same tired old rant about how butthurt you are because some people don't like your precious car?

Look: there are people who have already made up their minds and nothing you say will change it. They believe in what makes them feel good and they view the world in whichever way it suits them at the moment. Nothing you do will change them because they're not interested in change.

Then there are people who look at facts, ask questions, learn, grow, admit mistakes, challenge themselves and those around them. These are the people with which intelligent conversation is possible, and sometimes, enjoyable.

Both types of people exist in both sides of this argument.

Learn to tell the difference. Don't end up falling into the first group yourself.


M
 
M-Spec, I can say that we are in the second group. We're waiting someone to post proof about drivetrain losses and other claims they've made.

Reventon, speculating spypic shooters are just doing their job.. just making guestimateds out of nowhere, most likely.
 
Greycap
I'm against certain other people in this thread (and a few other threads too) that decide to believe absolutely nothing about the GT-R but believe everything what GM and Porsche say. It's been seen here. It's just a huge shame that the car isn't taken as what it is, almost every good thing in it has been shot down by someone who has compared it to something that isn't anywhere near the same class.
Click to expand...

As I recall, although I have been critical of the car in the past, I've made note of how much I respect the car. The problem is, I believe the math is fuzzy. I'd love to know more about the car, the mathematical way, to understand why it is as fast as it is. I really don't think there is a problem with that...
 
nd 4 holden spd
Of course, give a great big stonking V8 AWD and it could accelerate like that too, exceed expectations, but I bet it would handle badly in most cases, because of the limitations posed by AWD and the extra weight of a V8 and a front diff over the front.
Click to expand...

If they had the right technology they would be able to make it work like in the GT-R. The V8 engine probably doesn't differ that much in weight. The weight distribution might shift a couple percent. It makes me wonder how much weight in the GT-R comes from the extra technology compared to the average sports car. But it would seem like the best application of it would be a rear-engined car where they could still retain a rear weight bias.

Greycap
I can fully understand pitting the GT-R against the Z06, the 911 Turbo, the 911 GT3. They're the ones it was made to face and the ones it's going to be competing. However, we've seen it being pitted against such cars as the ZR1 and 911 GT2, losing the battle, and then the anti-Nissan crowd going into mental overdrive because the GT-R was beaten.

The same thing could be done the other way round. Pit the Z06 against a Ferrari FXX on track, see it getting beaten very big time, and then draw a conclusion that it's an absolutely hopeless brick of a car because it couldn't keep up. Sure, it lost to a car it was never made to compete with but it lost and that's what matters if we're thinking like the anti-Nissan people.

If that example doesn't enlighten why I think the "no matter what it takes" tests to prove the GT-R isn't for much good are pointless I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

I don't see what's wrong with comparing cars, especially ones with similar performance levels. Why can it be pitted against a 911 Turbo, Z06 and GT3 but not a ZR-1 or GT2?
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
I don't see what's wrong with comparing cars, especially ones with similar performance levels. Why can it be pitted against a 911 Turbo, Z06 and GT3 but not a ZR-1 or GT2?
Click to expand...
For the same reason you wouldn't see it pitted against an F1 racer. THe cost comparison, and the performance class comparison. You wouldn't pit a Honda Accord aagainst a GT-R, would you? Well, you could, but the results would be fairly predictable.
 
Der Alta
For the same reason you wouldn't see it pitted against an F1 racer. The cost comparison, and the performance class comparison. You wouldn't pit a Honda Accord against a GT-R, would you? Well, you could, but the results would be fairly predictable.
Click to expand...

But a GT3 should cost about the same as the ZR-1 assuming there is no mark-up. As for the GT2 comparison, why not compare it to see how a cheaper car can perform against a car that costs however many times more. And the Accord and F1 car aren't exactly production sports cars.
 
Well there was a link from autoblog.com and they were amazed at the GT-R lap time around Top Gear Test track. They didn't post it up but its on wikipedia, but you have to see an older version of the page as the time is now taken down. I'll just say this...My jaw dropped when i saw the time.
 
Leonidae
Reventon, speculating spypic shooters are just doing their job.. just making guestimateds out of nowhere, most likely.
Click to expand...
How can you be speculating a car that was unveiled months ago? But, that's not my point. What I want to know is where Roemer discovered the 7:29 GT-R (the one we've all been told is a 480Bhp one from the factory) had nearly 700Bhp when no one else discovered this.
 
Leonidae
until he can provide a dynosheet as a proof ( which I doubt), that is just another false claim.
Click to expand...

Therefore, no proof will be given, so it will go into extreme speculation in the end making the ZR-1 seem even better.

We need some numbers before everyone goes ripping each others heads off
 

Similar threads

jac0
"Lite" skinpack for the Nissan Skyline GT-R R32 JTCC
Replies
0
Views
463
jac0
jac0
Greg_ST
All The Skins For The Nissan Skyline R32 JTCC
Replies
5
Views
2K
Greg_ST
Greg_ST
M
Nissan GT-R 17 OP?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Meythia
Meythia
GTPNewsWire
Own a Gran Turismo Academy Champion's R32 Nissan Skyline GT-R
Replies
1
Views
2K
DaGiBUS
DaGiBUS
GTPNewsWire
See Where the Legend Started With This Rare 1969 Nissan Skyline GT-R
Replies
6
Views
2K
VXR
VXR

Latest Posts

Back