2012 Nissan GTR [0-60: under 3 seconds]

[niky]

Er, If you had a clue about the GTR you would know the 2009 had a hand built engine assembled by one technician in the "clean room" of the yokohama plant and when engines arent built by a machine their horspowers are never the same

If you had a clue about what hand-built means in terms of engines, you would actually spell horsepower correctly.

Handbuilding engines allows the company to ensure that they meet a more exacting standard than machine-assembly. In other words, valve and piston clearances are more tightly controlled and there's less variance in build quality than in regular machine-assembled engines, which can vary in terms of power very wildly... about ten percent or so for most roadgoing engines.

-----

The reason you think that the R35 engines make wildly differing power is because idiots with laptops and digital cameras keep posting dynos of the R35 on the internet "proving" the engine makes this or that hp. Conveniently ignoring the fact that different dynos can give readouts of the exact same car that are 100 hp higher or lower than others.

The GT-R (pre-2011) consistently makes 406-407 hp on Mustang and comparable brake dynos. It consistently makes 425-435 (or something like that) on Dynojets. It consistently makes 450-470 on Dasteks and Dynapacks... though the 475 on the Dynapack is due to a hilariously erroneous application of torque-correction factors.

This is consistent with all other cars... Mine makes almost nothing on the Mustang, around 130-140 on the Dynojet, 140-150 on the Dastek and 150+ on the Dynapack. Yes. Dyno readouts are incredibly varied.

There are still variances, but these are due to the misapplication of SAE corrections. You can see where incorrectly large SAE corrections have been applied by the dyno operator, because boost levels are much different from other dynos, as the GT-R varies boost and fueling due to ambient conditions.

-----

If you think dynos on the internet prove that all these GT-Rs, despite doing eerily similar 11+ second drag passes stock (launch control off), are making up to 100 hp more or less compared to each other... then you don't know dynos.

 

[Jay]

Er, If you had a clue about the GTR you would know the 2009 had a hand built engine assembled by one technician in the "clean room" of the yokohama plant and when engines arent built by a machine their horspowers are never the same

Total nonsense, Sure power outputs of cars out of the factory can vary in small amounts but that has nothing to do with being hand built. Infact being hand built you are working with very high tolerences (the point of hand building) making them more likely to be even powered, unless of course the engine builders themselves make some tweaks which is highly doubtful. Especially in turbocharged cars where boost levels are what makes the major torque changes rather than internal part specifications.

I remember this nonsense was started about the GT-R after Jeremy Clarkson mentioned it on Top Gear a couple years ago and much of the internet took it as fact.

*Edit* Little late to reply, niky explained it better 👍

 

[niky]

No problem. The big issue really is that the only ruler most people have is the dynamometer, and unfortunately, in dyno-la-la-land, the rulers don't always use the same inches.

One way to gauge actual power variance is through 1/4 mile trap-times. And thanks to all the electronics, all-wheel drive and automatic transmission, R35 GT-Rs are pretty consistent through the traps...

Note here: http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35199

All three stock cars at the bottom of the table have near identical times and trap speeds within 2 mph of each other.

#2 - 11.028 sec @ 122.85 mph 2012ssgtr
Fully stock on '12 OE Dunlop Summer Tires
1.602 60' (LC4) ⅛ = 7.030 @96.98 mph; Δ = 25.87 mph thread

#3 - 11.074 sec @ 124.45 mph FikseGTS
Fully stock on '12 OE Dunlop Summer Tires
1.646 60' (LC4) ⅛ = 7.082@97.88 mph; Δ = 26.57 mph
3/23/2011 @ Palm Beach International Raceway | est: 73º +1,117' DA (slip, thread, video)

#4 - 11.080 sec @ 122.50 mph LeagueCity09GTR
Fully stock on '12 OE Dunlop Summer Tires
1.630 60' (LC4) ⅛ = 7.064@99.51 mph; Δ = 22.99 mph thread

Pretty hard for a car to be that consistent across different drivers and venues with a power variance of up to 100 hp.

 

[Crash]

Er, If you had a clue about the GTR you would know the 2009 had a hand built engine assembled by one technician in the "clean room" of the yokohama plant and when engines arent built by a machine their horspowers are never the same

First of all look it up the 2009s had handmade engines and when the engines are handmade they are NEVER the same so theyre hps vary from engine to engine.

First off, please use punctuation. It helps make you more understandable.

Second, from your posts, are you inferring that when a machine builds an engine, then the horsepower output between different engines would be the same? Because let me tell you, it certainly doesn't work that way. Every machine makes or builds something within a certain tolerance. There will ALWAYS be at least a small amount of variation. This is with just one part. Imagine something as complex as an engine, with the large amount of parts in it; as small variation in parts build up, small differences between copies of the same product will compound. Have you heard of quality control? That entire area exists to ensure that whatever is made is within specified variation. There are many people out there that's dedicated to trying to minimize said variation, but even they recognize that ZERO variation is impossible, even with a machine.

 

[Zenith]

As a rule of thumb, never use Top Gear quotes in your arguments. Too many of them use skewed facts or outright fabrications. It's an entertainment show first, car program.... fifth?

 

[Crispy]

Has this car gone around the 'Ring yet? They need to do it again, maybe they can make a sub 7:20, maybe 7:10 if they're lucky.

 

[Enzo309]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdfNtEV2K1Q

750 hp switzer 997 turbo vs 650 hp Ferrari Enzo

that Porsche does 0-100 in 2.8 seconds , the ferrari does 3.5 seconds but to 200 the enzo is already a car lenght ahead.

You can make a 997.2 pdk turbo go to 100 kmh and the enzo will beat it to 300 kmh and so on to 370 kmh but lets not forget the Porsche only does 320 kmh.


0-62 mph or 0-100 kmh is nothing , although the numbers give you the idea of how fast it can accelerate.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Has this car gone around the 'Ring yet? They need to do it again, maybe they can make a sub 7:20, maybe 7:10 if they're lucky.

Not yet. Nissan ran a 7:24 on a damp track and announced that they will be trying again when the weather is better. They've had plenty of time, so not sure when that is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdfNtEV2K1Q

750 hp switzer 997 turbo vs 650 hp Ferrari Enzo

that Porsche does 0-100 in 2.8 seconds , the ferrari does 3.5 seconds but to 200 the enzo is already a car lenght ahead.

You can make a 997.2 pdk turbo go to 100 kmh and the enzo will beat it to 300 kmh and so on to 370 kmh but lets not forget the Porsche only does 320 kmh.

0-62 mph or 0-100 kmh is nothing , although the numbers give you the idea of how fast it can accelerate.

Your post has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

I wonder if this car stops accelerating at all before limiter.. They definitely need taller final gear ratios. Oh yeah, 0-62..? Less than in a Veyron.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Exactly how does a 0-60 time make a car great? I'm sorry but its the only thing I've read for multiple pages.

 

[eSZee]

Because America.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Because it out-accelerates anything in it's price range and above?

 

[Stevisiov]

Because it out-accelerates anything in it's price range and above?

Indeed, but a standing start is perhaps not the best indicator of acceleration, as you will only tend to see that from the traffic lights. 30-70 is perhaps a better indicator of acceleration. Not that the GT-R struggles with that either.

 

[Enzo309]

0-60 is nothing.

 

[Enzo309]

Not yet. Nissan ran a 7:24 on a damp track and announced that they will be trying again when the weather is better. They've had plenty of time, so not sure when that is...



Your post has nothing to do with this thread.

they can try but they will never beat the McLaren MP12-C

the McLaren MP12-C is 580 hp and it did 1:16 in top gear test track

that's 3 seconds faster in a small track than the 458 which is a lot faster than a nissan GTR.

in Nurburgring , it would be over 10 seconds quicker than the GTR , it makes the nissan like a 350z

The mp12-c is as quick as a bugatti veyron supersports which will be beaten by mclaren mp12-c in nurburgring.

 

[CodeRedR51]

they can try but they will never beat the McLaren MP12-C

the McLaren MP12-C is 580 hp and it did 1:16 in top gear test track

that's 3 seconds faster in a small track than the 458 which is a lot faster than a nissan GTR.

Did you even watch the latest Top Gear?

 

[Tornado]

they can try but they will never beat the McLaren MP12-C

the McLaren MP12-C is 580 hp and it did 1:16 in top gear test track

that's 3 seconds faster in a small track than the 458 which is a lot faster than a nissan GTR.

in Nurburgring , it would be over 10 seconds quicker than the GTR , it makes the nissan like a 350z

The mp12-c is as quick as a bugatti veyron supersports which will be beaten by mclaren mp12-c in nurburgring.

This post is no more relevant to the topic than your last one was.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Simple as that.

 

[Greycap]

So a car with 50+ bhp more power, ~400 kg less weight, a far superior weight distribution and three times the price tag is faster? Un-:censored:ing-believable. More than anything else it tells a lot about what it takes to beat the GT-R.

 

[Zenith]

How many seats does a McLaren have? How much does it cost? Because obviously the GT-R was made for nothing other than all out speed, that's why it has sat-nav, four seats, and puts its engine in the front. I'm tired of people trying to compare completely different cars.

And Nurburgring times are a terrible way of comparing cars. Different drivers, different days.

 

[CodeRedR51]

And Nurburgring times are a terrible way of comparing cars. Different drivers, different days.

Exactly. SO many variables that can add several seconds to those lap times.

 

[Dan_]

The McLaren was developed at the Dunsfold track, even the gear ratios are suited to that track, people should just stop taking top gear seriously. Also, Fifth gear did a review and they considered the Macca to be way too edgy, not to mention it actually crashed while hotlapping the ring.

I find it hard to beat the GTR at the ring, even though it has much more engine and would let the nissan behind in any highway blast.

 

[Stevisiov]

they can try but they will never beat the McLaren MP12-C

the McLaren MP12-C is 580 hp and it did 1:16 in top gear test track

that's 3 seconds faster in a small track than the 458 which is a lot faster than a nissan GTR.

in Nurburgring , it would be over 10 seconds quicker than the GTR , it makes the nissan like a 350z

The mp12-c is as quick as a bugatti veyron supersports which will be beaten by mclaren mp12-c in nurburgring.

Ah, its a facepalm moment.

 

[niky]

Exactly how does a 0-60 time make a car great? I'm sorry but its the only thing I've read for multiple pages.

Well... the 0-60 time is in the thread title.

It doesn't make the car great, but it makes a great talking point. And the fact that people are comparing the raw pace (both in acceleration and lap times) of this ginormously fat pig of a GT car to supercars that cost a whole lot more tells you a lot about this car.

Doesn't tell you if it's great to drive, though. But it slaloms between 74-75 mph (in various tests) and has 1g of grip on the skidpad... and apparently they've reworked the suspension geometry and improved the steering feel... so chances are pretty good that it is.

 

[bass264]

I like the R35, but I'll probably just get the R34 when I finish medical school. (which will be a long time from now

 

[OmniBreaker]

This car is brilliant. Probably the best example of four-wheel drive mastery in engineering right now.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I like the R35, but I'll probably just get the R34 when I finish medical school. (which will be a long time from now

If you're in the USA, good luck with that.

 

[sumbrownkid]

If you're in the USA, good luck with that.

Yep.

Might as well get the an R-35 or R-36 down the line and they at least have warranties still on them.

 

[Luminis]

they can try but they will never beat the McLaren MP12-C

If you think of both the GT-R and the MP4-12C (really, you should at least know what the car you seem to like so much is called) that way, this just proves how good the GT-R actually is.

 

[Stevisiov]

Well... the 0-60 time is in the thread title.

It doesn't make the car great, but it makes a great talking point. And the fact that people are comparing the raw pace (both in acceleration and lap times) of this ginormously fat pig of a GT car to supercars that cost a whole lot more tells you a lot about this car.

Doesn't tell you if it's great to drive, though. But it slaloms between 74-75 mph (in various tests) and has 1g of grip on the skidpad... and apparently they've reworked the suspension geometry and improved the steering feel... so chances are pretty good that it is.

To be honest, the 0-60 is not the impressive or most relevant thing about this car. With 4wd and a launch control system, you would expect the 0-60 times to be impressive. 0-60 times include a standing start and the majority of time gained (or saved) is the first 15 mph for 0. It's not surprising to see the GTR is strong in this area.

The impressive thing for me, is how incredibly well it handles given its a reasonably heavy vehicle, its something you might not expect from the car, unlike its 0-60 times.

I don't really find 0-60 as relevant as say 30-70 anyway. But 1g on a skidpan is very relevant, very relevant indeed.