Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by thebarron1989, Oct 18, 2010.
When it comes to bang for the buck performance plus decent comfort and drivability, this is the top vehicle.
<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/amazed.gif"></A>
when it comes to vehicles this is the top vehicle
If all production cars run like our 3529-mile engineering-mule tester, with its husky midrange torque and smooth ramp-ups to on-boost thrust, buyers will be getting way more than 480 horsepower for their dollars.
Unless they pulled the engine from the car and dyno'ed it, then there's not much they can say. Then there's the issue of correction factors, which they admitted to using in their follow-up article about GT-R power. That test in question took place at Reno-Fernley which is 4300' above sea level...
Their statement was primarily motivated by the GT-R's 0-60 time of 3.3 seconds.
"The GT-R must have more to be haul-assing its 3908 pounds to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds. That’s what the $321,956 611-hp Ferrari 599GTB Fiorano runs on game day."
That's a pretty retarded deduction on several counts.
Maybe. I think that test in question it's around 480 whp due to MT Dynojet dyno numbers and SAE formula.
Maybe? You think it's "maybe" retarded to ignore gearing, DCT vs manual, and AWD vs RWD? On top of that, C&D had not yet tested a GT-R with for sure more power than the factory claim, so what was their basis for comparison? That's right: They had none.
We know a GT-R doesn't need 480 whp to turn an 11.5 mile quarter mile time. A stock customer GT-R producing 434 whp on a Dynojet can produce that result, and has.
I don't know if you know this, but MT did a followup test to that Dynojet test. They used a dyno that can approximate the drivetrain loss, and found that the GT-R produced 485 hp. Only 5 more hp than claimed.
"So what does this tell us about Nissan's mighty Monster's miraculous performance? It suggests that the super-short gearing, the twin-clutch gearbox's uninterrupted torque flow, and the amazing (and also controversial) launch-control system are more responsible for generating the incredible acceleration numbers than hidden unclaimed horses."
As for SAE formula, that's another factor that can lead to inaccurate dyno testing. SAE J1349, Section 5.5:
"... boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure."
The bottom line is that unless you physically pull the engine from the car and test it on an engine dyno, you're not going to get an accurate hp figure. Testing a car at 4300', using questionable corrections, and making a conclusion about a specific hp level is a fool's game.
who cares how much power it has as long as it's cheap and fast GOD
HATERS GONNA HATE AND KEEP ON HATIN
This GT-R (the car that MT tested about 430 whp on Dynojet at sea level) may have been down on power; the May car ran the quarter-mile in 11.5 seconds at 124 mph. This one couldn’t crack 12 seconds and was a stunning 9 mph slower.
It looks like it's trying to eat it's own front bumper apart from that the GT-R is AWESOME. Can't belive a car that great can be so cheap!
I think the interior is perfect ;-)
It is beter than a grey interior now thats cheap ;-(
I prefer real black leather, but this one in the photo is tasty ;-)
I think woman will love it being in the car with all us men because it looks like some kind of chocolate ;-) do you want to only drive around all by yourself ;-( not me.
Shut up Meg
Who is meg?
Someone bring back touring car racing. I want to see a high quality series of this racing the vette and porsche on a regular basis.