Sound... that's why I said (some 50 pages ago) that despite liking the GT-R, I'd take a (much slower) M3 over it in a heartbeat. The M3 sounds gloriously bestial. Most turbo engines sound like hoovers...
RE: Focus: Yeah, read about that... strange how Ford tuned the LSD to "11" for the press, not realizing how bad it would be...
RE: "Press" cars... that's undeniable... and Nissan
did admit that the Nurb cars had a different suspension setting from the early release GT-Rs that was to be applied to later production models. As for power, it's anyone's guess... but from the times I've been seeing, I'm not quite convinced, not yet. Because, from a roll instead of from a drag-start, the GT-R still isn't quite as quick as the competition.
Car & Driver said that Nissan was most insistent that the car only had 10-15% drivetrain loss when C&D dynoed the car and got numbers that would have made a 30% loss well over the power rating. It was a couple of issues after their first GTR test in response to a letter.
I also have a question: Since when were underrated power numbers a bad thing? If anything I think it is cool when manufacturers try to slink past ratings to boost car power. How many people started complaining a few years ago when they found out that the SVT Cobra didn't in fact have 390 HP, or that Camaros at the time essentially had Corvette engines in them? How many Grand National drivers cared that there car's 280 horses was just some arbitrary number pulled out of Buick's ass when they were driving around drag racing Ferraris? How many Mercedes drivers didn't laugh it off when AMG was discovered performing the criminal task of selling V8s making 30 more horses than they were rated for? And I've never heard anyone driving a Supra who complained it had too much power.
Hell yeah!
It's perfectly possible for drivetrain losses to be 15%, since, as I said earlier, drivetrain losses on brake dynos are due to friction rather than actual drivetrain weight. That's why Hondas always dyno so damn high. Slippery gearboxes.
RE: under-estimation: I'm just trying to keep it real. Being a tuner-buff, I can't stand to see the internet littered with crazy claims of power outputs without a shred of solid evidence. Granted, no dyno is actually "solid proof" of anything, but the interpretations are way off given the dynocharts shown. I wish the SAE would sue Dynojet for starting this "HP" war amongst dyno manufacturers... Like one old-school tuner says: Torque is torque... so how can it be different on each and every dyno?
The way people talk, you'd think English Gallons and US Gallons were exactly the same...
The wiki page lies, makes it look a second faster than it was. The wiki page says 1'18.4, when as stated by stumpydino it only got a 1'19.7.
Actually it's the same time as the Scuderia, but sound? What sound? All I could hear the whole time was tyre screech.
I still think it's too quiet.
I could not help but notice how twitchy it was, even in The Stig's hands, which lets me know:
a) GT5 makes it look better than it really is
b) It's not as stable as people would like to think and make out.
The other thing Clarkson brought up a good point on, each engine is hand-built, meaning they all produce different levels of power. You then notice they always send the same GTR to do reviews and publicity stunts. Perhaps, like Clarkson predicts (read: His comment on this particular one having 1 million horsepower), the one they send out does actually have more power than the rest.
RE: "not as stable": Hallelujah... something some of us have been trying to say for 100 pages...
RE: Hand-built: It actually means the opposite of what you think.
Regular production engines are looser, parts aren't as well-balanced and engine longevity is compromised at higher power outputs.
Hand-built engines like the Type-Rs, BMW Ms, AMGs, etcetera are properly balanced, torqued and assembled. This helps them run smoother and survive high rpm usage longer than regular engines. And it assures that all of the engines will be makng optimal power. You won't have some engines producing 473 bhp, 520 bhp and then have a turd producing 400 bhp. No. They'll all make
at least 473 bhp. This won't prevent anyone from "chipping" one engine to make it faster, but as far as I recall, none of the
dyno'd engines were press units.
You can also "hand-build" a regular production engine. We call it "engine-balancing" and "blueprinting". That's where you balance each and every piston, rod, bolt and nut to within milligrams of each other. Doesn't actually give you any power, unless your stocker is way off-balance (if you're lucky, five ponies) but it sure makes the engine feel a lot nicer.
first thing that came in my mind when I read that, no offense.
the sound when it passes the tyres..
