gt5p cars has more horse power than real

[Kryz11]

thank you all guys

i used the normal s3 in the test


and guys dont Forget about the Acceleration its has more than real

For most cars, either S1 or N1 tires.. then you will get more accurate results.. But don't worry GT5 will have a new or improved Physics engine as promised by Kaz.

 

[quattro1234]

Yes, you're right. That's another exception. I remember reading by the time that Audi considered it as a 'supercar', at the level of Porsche's and so, not under the '250km/h max' agreement.

Other cars, such as BMW's M3, M5, Audi's RS4, RS6, Mercedes SL, CLS, S, so on all are 'factory' electronically limited to 250km/h.

RS4 and RS6 you can buy new without 250 km/t speddlim. It could be set up to 280 km/t.

Per

 

[alonsof1fan91]

Shame they put that in place, the Skyline GT-R should have been allowed to try to kick Ferrari's smug arses.

Maybe Nissan should try to kick Ferraris smug arses in Formula one, just like Toyota/Honda/BMW

Just a question: Could it be that the California has wrong specs in GT5P?
I thought it would be a lot heavier and with a bit less power then the F30.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

gt5p cars has more horse power than real

for example

the Evolution X GSR has got 317 hp in gt5p

317 when u buy it before buying 276

in real it has only 290 hp

GSR-Premium

EU model has 295

UK models has more but the GSR-Premium is Japanese model

I'll await the dyno sheets you have to prove that

The R35 GTR for example, is a good example of this. The 2008 model is said to have 478bhp but more often than not the actual output is over 500bhp.

Er no it's the way it delivers it's power which is why its so fast

Audi's RS4, RS6, are 'factory' electronically limited to 250km/h.

No they aren't

 

[nasanu]

something called the MAP ensures that no matter what you do with the car, what the weather outside is or whether it's Porsche doing the testing... you're not going to see more than 480 bhp out of the motor

So you are saying those who have dyno tested the GT-R are all part of a group conspiracy?


http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0803_2009_nissan_gt_r_dyno_test/results_analysis.html

"Let's concede to the myth and magic of Godzilla that maybe Nissan's wizards have miraculously managed to constrain drivetrain losses to 15 percent and assume the factory's engine-dyno-derived rpm peaks are accurate. That brings our hyper-conservative estimate in at:

507 hp at 6800 rpm and 500 pound-feet at 3200 rpm
"

 

[niky]

If by conspiracy, you mean a conspiracy of ignorance, yes.

All the Motortrend dynos showed is that if you apply Nissan's claimed 10% power loss, you get 480 hp inferred from those 430 hp dynos. Motortrend doesn't know how to count, refuses to apply those loss numbers, and further fudged the test by using a lower numeric gear. Many dyno operators know you can pick up about 10-20% more hp just by going to a gear lower than 1:1.

And note... this is a Dynojet... and a sweep test. Sweep tests are particularly tricky as they either underestimate or overestimate a car's power because they succumb to frictional losses and weight losses more easily than load tests (which is what you should use to really measure power and to elicit full boost).

As noted by one comment in the article:

marc99 (09/08/08 09:46 AM)

Well, at least the idea that some dyne systems are "righter and wronger than others" is right -

ANY dyno using inertia or load controlled SWEEP tests is likely to be minorly to majorly flawed as far as HP calculations.

Why? Simple.
If the SWEEP test software doesn't know the exact spinning mass of the engine, drive train and the wheels, it will calculate an incorrect amount of power during an "acceleration" / "sweep" test.
If the software "thinks" that it is spinning a higher mass than the vehicle actually has, it will read higher than the real power.

Why is the dynamometer industry so plagued with improper numbers?
Well, it all started with Dynojet's motorcycle dynos and the desire to make them read "higher". They made some tests on a V Max and then fudged the numbers higher - Maybe almost guaranteeing that they'd sell more dynos to people who knew little about dynos and testing - They took that fudge factor and applied it to their car dyno - with maybe the same marketing aim.

We already have a huge discussion on dyno numbers here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2958733
I've pointed you to the thread, and to continue would be off-topic, but I'd like to make sure it doesn't come up again....

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.

If you take the highest data point and infer, given this is a Dastek dyno and they're (incorrectly) applying SAE corrections for the cold weather... it seems to suggest about 420 whp or so...

So test them on the same dyno? Thought you'd never ask.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/supercars/nissan-gt-r-and-porsche-911-turbo-dyno-results/
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/firstNav=Gallery/videoId=20224537/articleId=125172

Edmunds showed basically what you'd expect... the GT-R makes 40+ more power on the Dynapack versus the Mustang Dyno... and NEARLY EXACTLY THE SAME POWER AS THE 911 TURBO.

What the whole brouhaha over the GT-R has shown is how little some automotive journalists and even some "tuners" know about dynos. When I was new and testing my car out, and either happy, sad or perplexed by what my car made on the dyno, a friend told me that it doesn't matter what it actually says, but how it compares to what it made before on the same dyno that matters.

And if you really want a baseline, see what it makes compared to other cars on the exact same dyno. Which is what Edmunds did. And these are the results they got. If you don't have another car to baseline against, you're just guessing. From my dynos at three different shops, you'd think my car was 130 hp, 140 hp or 160 hp... stock... given the same drivetrain losses applied to all dynos.

-

The other dynos? The infamous 475 hp Japanese dyno was also on a Dynapack, which I know intimately... and which has a nifty function called torque-correction factor. Now, the Dynapack's accuracy without correction or operator input is impeccable (though not comparable 1:1 with either the Dynojet or the Mustang)... but the TCF, which the operator inputs manually, is a fudge factor which is used to convert whp to bhp. The 475 hp dyno actually reads "bhp", not "whp".

-

This is not to say that the GT-R isn't over-rated. Rather, the evidence people are using to "prove" it are fatally flawed, and seem to prove exactly the opposite. The GT-R is no more over-rated than any other modern turbocharged car.

I see a lot of dyno-operators going "d'oh!" every time they read a GT-R dyno argument. It's like watching thirteen year olds argue government fiscal policy...

EDIT: This is not a dig at anyone here... this is about automotive "journalists" and "tuners" who ought to really know better and who should research their articles before putting these claims out. I know I've been guilty of this, too... but some people are just so adamant that they're right, even when they're working from flawed data. Dyno racing with such different equipment is about as useful as bragging about the weight of your livestock measured on different bathroom scales. (and don't get me started on the "accuracy" of bathroom scales...)

-

And back on topic... the only car that is well and truly over-rated in GT5P is the RX8... which has been shown on various dynos, in comparison to competition with the same quoted horsepower, to be over-rated. Why PD hasn't fixed that yet is beyond me.

 

[ADAE25]

I'll await the dyno sheets you have to prove that

If u need more prove visit (MMNA) click on evo x it says 295 hp that's an official site of Mitsubishi

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

If u need more prove visit (MMNA) click on evo x it says 295 hp that's an official site of Mitsubishi

Yeah cause quoting a stage 1 tune is proof of stock bhp

 

[niky]

Interestingly... (for the EVO X)...

The stock line claims 269 whp on a Dynojet. With a 15% drivetrain loss, that comes out to a nice, round 316.5 bhp.

Of course, again, dynos are relatively meaningless... given the various ways dynos maeasure horsepower, different calibrations, SAE corrections, etcetera... you can get any dyno to say anything you want.

 

[ADAE25]

Yeah cause quoting a stage 1 tune is proof of stock bhp

and now what u say ?

its from Mitsubishi Japanese site

300ps = 295hp

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/evo/performance/per_01.html

im a lancer evolution fan but i dont like to dirve a car have more power than real

and goes from 0-60 3.4sec this is an evolution not a Gallardo
if it was an fq-400 its ok 0-60 3.5 is real

 

[nasanu]

So all the other dyno tests you can find via google are also wrong and you are the only person who is right (also the only person not being paid to do it as their job) on the issue? Also if you are to be believed then dynos can not be trusted at all. So where is your claim of the GTR's power coming from? Where is your proof?

 

[Tornado]

So all the other dyno tests you can find via google are also wrong and you are the only person who is right (also the only person not being paid to do it as their job) on the issue? Also if you are to be believed then dynos can not be trusted at all. So where is your claim of the GTR's power coming from? Where is your proof?

Great response to his well-researched and thoroughly explained points. I now truly feel that niky is incorrect on this issue just because you said he was. niky, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks.

And back on topic... the only car that is well and truly over-rated in GT5P is the RX8... which has been shown on various dynos, in comparison to competition with the same quoted horsepower, to be over-rated. Why PD hasn't fixed that yet is beyond me.

I haven't put any real time into GT5, but is the RX-8 still rated for the 250 that it was in GT4?

 

[phillookswasted]

281bhp at 0

 

[niky]

So all the other dyno tests you can find via google are also wrong and you are the only person who is right (also the only person not being paid to do it as their job) on the issue? Also if you are to be believed then dynos can not be trusted at all. So where is your claim of the GTR's power coming from? Where is your proof?

I assume you actually read my post where I linked to Edmund's article, where they dyno'd the GT-R back to back with the "480 hp" Porsche 911 Turbo and got nearly the exact same numbers (410-ish or so)?

And where they dyno'd the exact same car on a Dynapack and got somewhere around 440?

Did the GT-R magically gain 30 hp between dynos? Nope. This just demonstrates the wide variance of readings from different dynos.

-

If I am to be believed, dynos cannot be trusted at all. Yes. Rolling Road Dynos can only estimate how much power is coming out at the wheels.

They will not be able to calculate, with any degree of accuracy, drivetrain loss, torque multiplication factors, or frictional losses due to tire slippage. The Dynapack avoids the problem of wheel inertia and tire slippage, but still requires you to manually enter approximate drivetrain loss... a fudge factor that can affect readings greatly.

SAE atmospheric corrections make things even worse because modern engines already compensate for temperature and atmospheric pressure. In fact, SAE guidelines state that you don't correct for these engines, anymore.

If you bother to look at the GT-R dynos... boost pressure is all over the place. This is because the GT-R varies boost and power depending on ambient conditions.

The engine is programmed to make exactly what Nissan wants it to make whether it's the middle of winter in the Alps or in the middle of summer in Arizona. (well, it might make a little less in Death Valley... hell, I could write an entire chapter on heat-soak and how it affects dyno brakes and car engines). There's no "cheating" there.

Why do you think Porsche did an exhaustive study of the GT-R and concluded that the reason it is so fast is due to "cheater" tires (the answer... you don't need cheater tires... you just replace the stock tires every two laps... )? Because they likely put it on their own rolling road and found out it only made the same power as the 911 Turbo (similar displacement, both turbo, same power).

-

As for the Lancer... its power is what it is. Manufacturers give approximations of bhp, but may over or underquote them for marketing purposes. For lower-end and mid-range sports vehicles, cars can be under-estimated to create a clear market boundary between that car and the next car up. For mid-range sports cars like the EVO and STI, they may underquote for taxation or insurance purposes (though the difference between 295 and 300+ really isn't that much). They'll put top end limiters on the ECU, but the car will make nearly full power over a wide spread of RPMs (note the EVO dyno I posted... 230-270 whp over a broad spread from 4.5k to 7k rpms).

-

If you are familiar with different dyno models, and actually know how to interpret a dynograph sheet, none of the GT-R's dynos are very surprising at all. Nice and healthy, but not very surprising, and not: "OMG! GT-R ROXXORZ! 550++++ BEE-H-PEE!" Maybe close to 500, given the right weather, but not some incredibly huge number spinning out of the imagination of speed-addled magazine hacks and internet junkies.

 

[nasanu]

I assume you actually read my post where I linked to Edmund's article, where they dyno'd the GT-R back to back with the "480 hp" Porsche 911 Turbo and got nearly the exact same numbers (410-ish or so)?

So the GTR and the 911 have exactly the same drive train efficiency? How do they know this?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

So the GTR and the 911 have exactly the same drive train efficiency? How do they know this?

Comprehension, you need it.

911 Turbo and the GT-R both made the same power AT THE WHEELS when tested on the same dyno.

 

[niky]

So the GTR and the 911 have exactly the same drive train efficiency? How do they know this?

They don't.

I was pointing out... if the GT-R was under-rated and if it had a mere 10% loss, it should make much more at the wheels than the Porsche in a back-to-back test. It doesn't.

In fact, if they make similar power at the wheels... that would make the Porsche under-rated. That's if you believe either dyno is accurate.



Again... a dyno is a good "guess-timate", but you can't make pronouncements from it and claim them as gospel, as many people on the internet do.

 

[devildog666]

Maybe Nissan should try to kick Ferraris smug arses in Formula one, just like Toyota/Honda/BMW

Just a question: Could it be that the California has wrong specs in GT5P?
I thought it would be a lot heavier and with a bit less power then the F30.

They need to change that. In real life the California weighs 1630kg and the
F430 weighs 1450kg. The California should get killed by the F430, not to mention the GTR. Unfortunately that's not the case in GT5P.

 

[Rolo GTI]

They don't.
Again... a dyno is a good "guess-timate", but you can't make pronouncements from it and claim them as gospel, as many people on the internet do.

off topic mode on

+1, that's why when I make mods to my car, I always go to the same dyno and do the test in the same gear (weather factors are out of control), I think that's only that way I can figure out if the mods give some benefits or not. Also it gies an estimated horse power of the engine, but just that...only estimated

Some people for the same issue test the car in 3rd gear, from 3k rpm to 7k rpm, and take the time

off topic mode off