I want this car <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/sad.gif"></A> Over a ZR1 I think not sure over the 911 Turbo...yet

"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. " From MT GT-R 530ps 60-122.7 mph 8.3s GT-R 485ps 60-119.8 mph 8.3s ..a poor difference for 45ps and improved transmission....

Same day, same test? If not, that doesn't say much about hp differences. From R&T GT-R 530ps 60-124.3 mph 8.2s (3.51m/s^2) +8.0% GT-R 485ps 60-120.4 mph 8.3s (3.25m/s^2) C&D* GT-R 530ps 60-126 mph 8.3s (3.55m/s^2) +9.2% GT-R 485ps 60-121 mph 8.4s (3.25m/s^2) Italian tests GT-R Spec-V 507ps (dyno'ed) 62-122 mph 8.21s (3.28m/s^2) +3.8% GT-R 489ps (dyno'ed) 62-119 mph 8.06s (3.16 m/s^2) *I used a figure from C&D that is close to customer cars. 2 of C&D's test cars, provided by Nissan, trapped much lower than customer cars: 113 mph and 115 mph. Just for reference, edmunds.com's GT-R (which was their long-term car that they bought from a dealer, not a press car) returned 3.24m/s^2 for 60-118 mph. Pretty much spot-on for the press GT-Rs. It's pretty funny that your post does nothing to refute the quote.

From Elaborare - GT-R tuned by Alosa GT-R 619ps (dyno'ed) 62-124 mph 7.1s (3.91 m/s^2) 62-128 mph 7.9s (3.73 m/s^2)

From Elaborare - GT-R tuned by Alosa GT-R 619ps (dyno'ed) 62-128 mph 7.9s (3.73 m/s^2)+18% GT-R 489ps (dyno'ed) 62-119 mph 8.06s (3.16 m/s^2)

From Elaborare - GT-R tuned by Alosa GT-R 619ps (dyno'ed) 62-128 mph 7.9s (3.73 m/s^2) +18% GT-R 489ps (dyno'ed) 62-119 mph 8.06s (3.16 m/s^2)

From Elaborare - GT-R tuned by Alosa GT-R 619ps @ 6740 Rpm (dyno'ed) 62-128 mph 7.9s (3.73 m/s^2) +18% GT-R 489ps @ 6005 Rpm (dyno'ed) 62-119 mph 8.06s (3.16 m/s^2)

From Elaborare - GT-R tuned by Alosa GT-R 619ps @ 6740 Rpm (dyno'ed) 62-128 mph 7.9s (3.73 m/s^2) +15.3% From Auto GT-R 489ps @ 6005 Rpm (dyno'ed) 62-119 mph 8.06s (3.16 m/s^2) Still we don't dyno all the cars we never know the real max power. Power of 21%. It's pretty funny that your post still does not prove the Hp peaks. C&D GT-R 530ps 60-126 mph 8.3s (3.55m/s^2) +1.7% C&D development car 60-124 mph 8.2s (3.49m/s^2) and 11.5 quarter mile. "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" A 619ps GT-R did 11.1 on quarter mile time. C&D 530ps GT-R did 11.2. This post about quarter mile times nothing prove about Hp rated comparo, but still prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%Â£on in GT-R's power figure estimate.

My post proved that you need to look at more than one test result between cars to say anything definitive about hp. If you look at one test of a higher rated car, and it's a test that is slower than others, how accurate is your conclusion? And this test of the Alosa GT-R, who did it? On a dragstrip? With or without roll-out? Was that dyno figure corrected? That is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R, when Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps, did 100-200 in 6.9s (4.03m/s^2). There's a reason I compared test results within mags, when it's possible. Here's the customer GT-R, with 434 whp running an 11.5 second quarter mile: http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25157&st=0&p=358503&#entry358503 On the same type of dyno, Motor Trend's GT-R (red one supplied by Nissan) produced 430.6whp: http://image.motortrend.com/f/9330330+w750/112_0803_14z+2009_nissan_GT-R+hp_comparison_chart.jpg The same car ran an uncorrected 1/4 mile of 11.51: http://image.motortrend.com/f/9329820+w750/112_0803_04z+2009_nissan_GTR+clipboard.jpg

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R, when Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster "you never know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected. How accurate conclusion about single car of max Hp/Rpm is your? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%Â£on in GT-R's power figure estimate.

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R for you, the Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster when "you never know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected,the Import Racing's GT-R is 780. How accurate conclusion about single car of max Hp/Rpm is your? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%Â£on in GT-R's power figure estimate. Even confuting always everything with Auto's GT-R data and their 489 PS dyno figure. We all knows, that's the Guibo's game.

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R for you, the Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster when in the case "you don't know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected,the Import Racing's GT-R is 780. How accurate conclusion about single car of max Hp/Rpm is your? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%Â£on in GT-R's power figure estimate. Even confuting always everything with Auto's GT-R data and their 489 PS dyno figure. We all knows, that's the Guibo's game <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R for you, the Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster when in the case "you don't know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected, the Import Racing's GT-R is 780. How accurate conclusion about single GT-R of max Hp to Rpm is your? just looking for a rapresentative 489ps on top dyno figure? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%Â£on in GT-R's power figure estimate. Even confuting always everything with Auto's GT-R data and their dyno figure. We all knows, that's the Guibo's game <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R for you, the Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster when in the case "you don't know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected, the Import Racing's GT-R is 780. How accurate conclusion about single GT-R of max Hp to Rpm is your? just looking for a rapresentative 489ps on top dyno figure? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%£on in GT-R's power figure estimate. Even confuting always everything with Auto's GT-R within factory power data when a more powerful car could be fast as or minimally faster. We all knows, that's the Guibo's game <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

Infact, behind 100-200, 60-120 or quarter mile difference is difficult to prove Hp levels. This is why is not necessarily representative of a 620ps GT-R for you, the Import Racing's GT-R, claimed @ 590ps could be little faster when in the case "you don't know" due to the torque of both cars are really producing. Alosa's GT-R it's just 711 Nm corrected, the Import Racing's GT-R is 780. How accurate conclusion about single GT-R of max Hp to Rpm is your? just looking for a rapresentative 489ps on top dyno figure? Again, it's still a prove you are a %@&#[email protected]?%£on in GT-R's power figure estimate. Even on the choice trying to confute always everything with Auto's GT-R within factory power data when a more powerful car could be fast as or minimally faster, take a look at the 507ps GT-R. But, we all knows, that's the Guibo's game <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

If it is difficult to prove Hp levels, then why are you even arguing against my statement? You cannot argue with it. The fact is, GT-Rs with ~430 whp have turned 11.5s 1/4 miles. FACT. You don't need 480 whp to do that. Customer GT-Rs are also returning similar hp figures to what Nissan-supplied press vehicles produce. Where is the problem here? Are you pissed that Nissan may be under-representing the torque figure? What difference does it make if customer GT-Rs are returning similar figures and producing similar 1/4 mile times? As for the Italian tests, those power figures were corrected for ambient conditions. A turbocharged car with adaptive engine controls, by its nature, should have little to no correction applied. This is explicitly stated in SAE standards. And neither of those cars made anywhere NEAR 480 hp at the wheels anyway.

And here is Guibo, again, you came back of a step and you answered me proving with 1/4 mile point an other time. This is fact and that's the Guibo's game. Are you hiding behind the 480 whp now? it's an other step back or something other? The point is that you were always referring at Auto's test in your choice, that was logical for your game, but neglecting that a 20+hp car may produce similar performance. It's pretty funny that you are trying always to choice your answer with a step forward then a step back, but now never really confuting the relationship from the Auto's car tested with the SportAuto car and their similar 489ps car's performance yesterday, and the 507ps car tested by Automobilismo, today. I will have to wait a lot? or newly an other step back? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

I cannot argue with it, that are you omitting basically points like the two tuned GT-Rs example? I ask you something other: have you some scans about the Koenig Competition, Evoltuion or Cabrio? I saved a page of your old article you posted about the blue cabrio, but will be grateful you if you will post here the complete article. Thanks in advance, if. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>

The two tuned GT-Rs examples aren't terribly relevant, since we don't know how they would have performed under the same conditions that C&D tested. You can't point to one single test of a tuned GT-R and compare it to another test done with different methods on another continents (with roll-out) and say, "Aha! That proves the power!" All we need to know is that you don't *need* 480 whp to turn 1/4 mile times of 11.5 in the GT-R, even if somewhere on someday, one with 480 whp could do no better than 11.5. The example of the customer car is all that is needed, and MT's press vehicle only supports it further. At the risk of stoking the Ferrari trolldom, go here: http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=1&fID=1&tID=185658