GT-R: full test (with dyno)

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by mafalda, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. Great stuff, not the fastest car in the world, but still epic though.

    Thanks, keep it up.
     
  2. Wait, you are saying the R&T car tested at Buttonwillow was a test mule?

    I already answered your points:
    Pre-production NURBURGRING mule was slower on autobahn roll than Porsche Turbo. No need to question power/tq, the result is consistent with other tests.
    Yes, Auto GT-R and Sport Auto GT-R are performing sufficiently for Suzuki's record (done with VDC *OFF*FFS!). For supertest, HvS only does 3 flying timed laps. You seriously think you can find the limit of any car in only 3 laps? HvS has been slower than many other drivers, some by much more than 12 seconds. He has been slower than even other journalists, nevermind factory test pilots with international racing backgrounds...
    HvS even says in the supertest that the time difference "comes quite close" and that the failure to meet Nissan's time was his own failing, not on any suspicious behavior by Nissan.

    Your constant b1tching and innuendo really marks you out as a sore loser of some sort. The problem with your emphasis on low-revs segments is that in low revs segments, these are usually handling and braking zones where a driver's familiarity with a car is likely more important than some minor differences in torque. Also it is in these low-revs zones (handling, braking) where VDC-R would be most disruptive to a perfect lap. On the very fast Doettinger Hoehe straight, the constraining effects of VDC-R is minimized; here, it's a measure of hp. Funny how before you were claiming 530+ hp on the basis of DH speed differences and now that Suzuki in S1 GT-R video shows only 1 kph faster than Harris, and now that Auto confirms no funny business about hp, you want to point the emphasis to torque. Give it a rest already.
     
  3. me = innuendo
    you = NOT
    like normal.
     
  4. #29 Guibo, Sep 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    GT-R owner on the Nurburgring:
    "I drove the whole Ring with VDC R, but honestly it is slowing me down. There are some places where the VDC stops the power without any reason. One is where the asphalt changes in corner so it thinks it´s slipping but it´s not. And the seocnd one is Carussel."
    http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/1095889-post15.html

    Randy Pobst:
    "'Race' mode, or the 'R' mode, it's really not a race mode because there's still a lot of stability control working, and I think the 'R' mode is a wonderful thing to have for your average guy...now for me, as a racecar driver, on a racetrack, I found it very frustrating because it'd pull back the power, and I'd have my foot on the floor, and not getting full power, and it would prevent the car from sliding...it's obviously something that is a safety feature."


    Jethro Bovingdon, Drivers Republic:
    "What is clear is that it's easy to drive the GT-R quickly - but the same could be said of the 997 Turbo, or a Lamborghini LP560-4, neither of which are labelled 'uninvolving' or 'clinical'. That particular argument has been constructed by people with an axe to grind, normally a very expensive axe that's parked in their driveway and suddenly doesn't seem like such good value or quite as special as it once did. It certainly isn't an argument you'd care to make had you turned off the VDC-R and snuck up on the GT-R's absolute limits - because when the sticky 285-section Dunlop tyres do let go, it's just like any other car: it needs the driver to correct the slide."

    Owners reporting VDC-R strange behavior (cutting power or applying brakes) on bumpy and downhill surfaces:
    http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=33166

    Innuendo? GTFO.
     
  5. I got to drive a GT-R few weeks back. Very impressed with how it launches. Feels way faster than the Porsche Turbo.
     

  6. WALPERSTYLE?
     
  7. 个部件组成新的套筒在前面组成新的组成新的
     
  8. ?????????????????????????
     
  9.  
  10.  
  11. The car of awesome.
     
  12. How about the power in AMERICAN figures?
     
  13. "real power" and "real torque" measured with a chassis dyno? LMAO.
     
  14.  
  15. like in amount of hamburguers and hot dogs? or what?
     
  16. Oh you are so witty.
     
  17. #42 906, Oct 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evolongtermtests/240874/nissan_gtr.html

    Two questions relating to the GT-R had been playing on my mind. One, what is the true power output of a standard UK-spec R35? (Is it really the puny 478bhp that Nissan claims?) And two, how the hell do I explain to The Brunette that, whatever it is, it’s simply not enough?

    I never did manage to come up with a solution for the latter, but to provide a definitive answer for the former I recently paid a visit to my local dyno, Surrey Rolling Road in Chobham ( www.surreyrollingroad.co.uk).

    Now, I know that the Milltek Y-pipe I had fitted to my car last month is only supposed to enhance the GT-R’s sound and not its power (and thus not trouble the Nissan warranty), but as there was the possibility that it could, in reality, affect the figures, I also invited a fellow GT-R owner to attend and get his completely standard car figured too.

    After SRR’s Charlie Wright had worked out a way to safely strap down a GT-R on his Dyno Dynamics rolling road without having to remove any of the car’s underbody aero panels, I switched off GO02 LLA’s ESP to stop it interfering, and Charlie executed a power run in third gear. After being mildly disappointed with the figures the tuned Corvette Z06 I used to run obtained on this dyno, I was rather surprised to see that my GT-R produced a very healthy 512bhp. Even more staggering was the peak torque figure of 500lb ft. That’s a very big jump from the claimed 433.

    We then tested the other, completely stock GT-R and found it produced a solid 506bhp with 485lb ft, but before any conclusions are jumped to about the Y-pipe, I should point out that this car had only covered 1500 miles, so probably had a considerably tighter mill than Godzilla 2. Whatever, the inescapable conclusion is that GT‑Rs comfortably exceed the stated outputs, which goes some way to explaining the car’s remarkable performance – 0-60mph in 3.9sec and 0-100 in 8.4 for the UK press car (evo 134).

    It was numbers like these that meant I had no plans to tune my GT-R. After all, most sane people would agree that these are already fantastically impressive figures. However, crossing America in a mighty 820bhp SSP-tuned GT-R (evo 133) opened my eyes to just how tough the new VR38 engine is, so when Ben Linney from UK-based tuner and parts supplier GTC ( www.gtc-r.com) mentioned that maps specific to the European GT-R were now available for the amazing Cobb AccessPort tuning device, I was seduced by the power of the dark side…

    A small, iPod-sized unit, the AccessPort simply plugs into the diagnostics port under the steering column and allows new maps to be downloaded to the GT-R’s ECU (it can also act as a data logger and performance meter). Does it work? Well, having tested my car on the rolling road in standard tune, a quick ten-minute download had it running the Stage 1 97 RON map (for super-unleaded petrol only), so Charlie fired up the cooling fans again and went for another power run.

    I was astonished to see the new graph showed a peak of 547bhp, with a stonking 530lb ft of torque. A quick run with my Racelogic PerformanceBox later on showed a dramatic improvement in performance too, with a best 0-60mph time of 3.2sec and 0-100 in 7.6. When I remember how much money I spent tuning Godzilla 1, my old R33 GT-R, the fact that the Cobb can achieve this and only costs £750 (plus VAT) is mind-blowing.

    Now to try Stage 2 and maybe even a custom map…



    http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/120422-cobb-access-port-thread.html

    YouTube - Auto-Journals.com's Nissan R35 GT-R on the rolling road

    My car has the "no extra power" (or if Litchfield's findings were correct, "slightly less than stock power") Milltek Y-pipe. Quite a healthy base number I'm sure you'll agree.
    We ran with the bonnet almost completely closed and on just about the hottest day of the year so far, over 30 degrees. Because I don't have any V-Power near me, my car is almost entirely run on BP Ultimate which is 97 RON.

    Charlie's dyno by the way, is known for being one of the most accurate around (Dyno Dynamics) and stock cars e.g. Porsche GT3s etc hit bang on their stated horsepower, although my supposed SAE-rated Z06 made only 498hp on this very dyno rather than the stated 505hp. I say this to pre-empt the sceptics who will say the dyno over-reads. In the US, Dyno Dynamics are known as "heartbreakers" because they always give much lower (read, "more accurate") readings than the more popular Dynojets and Mustang dynos.
     
  18. #43 mafalda, Oct 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  19. #44 thebarron1989, Oct 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  20. #45 4WD, Oct 23, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  21. #46 F40 Le Mans, Oct 26, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    GREAT JOB
    a solid 506bhp with 485 lb ft for a car had only covered 1500 miles seems incredible

    Automobilismo italian mag had recently tested 481 bhp with 454 lb ft a ~9000 miles GTR with Vpower, the same Auto press car.

    DY's figures for 4000 miles with BP Ultimate 97 RON fuel is astonishing too, 512 bhp with 500 lb ft, so thinking more for higher octane fuels
    but equally ~30bhp ~50 lbft more than Italian tested press cars.

    Interesting is the accurate DY point to determine no dyno over-reads and interesting is the inescapable CONTRAST
    in the GTR power conclusions between EVO (written by DY) and AUTO magazine or SoCal GT-R Dyno Day.
    Or is all a Nissan engine power spec alibi?
    I think for someone here is a bla bla thread like others in past.
     
  22. 520 + bhp a lucky mule?
     
  23. I don't know but assumption for 506bhp with 485 lb ft for a car had only covered 1500 miles...
     
  24. dyno figures can be manipulated to give or take 50hp depending on mode
    hell, putting the temp probe somewhere hotter will get you 25hp or so
     
  25. So basically GT-R provided by Nissan for press testing is making LESS power than stock customer cars. That implies that a stock customer car could lap faster than the 7:38 as recorded by Sport Auto for the supertest; that car was no faster in acceleration than the GT-R tested by Auto, which we see is down 20-30 hp on David Yu's figues for stock horsepower GT-R. And this is even before factoring in the effect of VDC.
    Once again, if there is variation in GT-R horsepower, then it applies to customer cars as well. Thus, no "ringers."
     

Share This Page