Quote :

"the car i mentioned that went 11.1 had a haltech piggyback unit. it altered fuel/timing and elevated the boost level to 1.0bar."

raising boost is about as much as you can do

Quote :

"how many psi is it running... cause i bet that could be bumped... if not then build and sleeve the the bottom end i'm sure darton would be happy to assist in making a sleeve for it. I'm willing to bet that ppg would be happy to assist you with a straight cut gear set for it or even a beefier helical. if the exhaust already flows well... good but the cats can be removed and I'm sure someone will either make a resistor kit or ems tune that will make the emissions codes disappear. Turbos can be swapped new manifolds can be made... and it has plenty of opportunities to go on a diet I'm sure. "

You entirely missed the point. It's not about what can be done, it's about what anyone with any sense would do. You are talking about spending MASSIVE amounts of money for marginal gains on an already highly tuned (for factory) engine. The car is already 150-250K. There are maybe a handful of people on the planet who would (and I'm sure will) do what you are talking about just to keep the car.

It's one thing to spend 10-50K for major performance gains by going NA to forced induction. Or to build up the bottom end to turn up the boost (a la Impreza/Lancer Evo). But you can't do either on this car. It would require a complete race-spec rebuild from top to bottom to see those kind of gains, and would likely no longer be road legal (which is the entire point of a supercar).

Quote :

"btw... what mods have you done to your lotus? "

So far, just new tires, upgraded the brakes and weight reduction. Still has two years left on the factory warranty, so no SC/Turbo until that runs out

6/2/2008 11:04:05 PM

For those who like the car, some new pics:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080616.006/flock-of-gt-rs-descend-upon-uae-dealer

Couple of the many pics:

6/17/2008 5:55:15 PM

slow over rated junk. the gtr is a big example of FAIL.

6/17/2008 10:52:37 PM

Amazing how it really falls off after 100mph (compared to other supercars)

6/17/2008 10:55:51 PM

I sat in one of these things in Tokyo, pretty badass. The door handles are weird, it:s like a lever that you push out on one side, then pull.

Saw a black one parked in the airport parking lot here in Komatsu. Pretty badass.

7/30/2008 1:14:34 AM

I like some features, but don't really care for the car

Nissan No Thx

awd Yes Plz

Automanual No Thx U


Let the humans drive the car plz

7/30/2008 1:55:26 AM

Quote :

"I would rather own a chevy than a nissan. How sad is that"

7/30/2008 7:26:08 AM

Anyone see the top gear on it???

It finished way way better than they thought it would on their track

I think just above the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti

7/30/2008 7:59:13 AM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the YouTube video of the Nissan’s “historic run” clearly shows that the GT-R had a flying start. All other manufacturers testing at the ‘Ring use standing starts for published lap times. The video also proves that the car's lap time was not measured at the exact same location (start and stop). Take these two factors into account, and the 7:40 claim seems highly dubious."

the ZR1 video does the same thing. Flying start with different start/end marks. Some youtube comments said that this was the norm for Nurburgring and is how all cars get their times on there. Then there was some more arguing about EXACT start/end points and inconsistent timers.


I dont know why everyone keeps comparing the GTR to a Z06 in a straight line etc. The thing is a fattie with supposedly less horsepower. Everyone knows AWD launches hard and traps slow (relatively), so what? They also say that the GTR's driveline loss is only about 10% due to more efficient design. I'm not saying I'm eating up everything they say about this car, but there's a lot of hating on it for no reason.

You can do plenty more to its engine. Surely it's not topped out by any means. 3.8L V6 TT has more in it than just 500hp. Remember the 3.0L I6 in the supra that can do something like 900hp (might even be whp) on stock block? Or the 2.6L I6 in the old skyline that can do almost as much? Grand national v6?

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : not 3.3L ]

7/30/2008 9:18:23 AM

Stock supra is 3.0l but yes i agree the only thing i don't like is nissan's anal warranty but i probably couldn't afford one till its done anyway...

and if they're running the N ring like everyone else is there is a staging lane and only 1 lap is allowed so the start/stop points have to be different or you would interfere with others coming onto the track

I'm sure for factory testing though they rented the entire track for a day or whatever.

7/30/2008 9:30:39 AM

Quote :

"I would kill people for this car grandparents emo kids movie stars babies retarded children etc"

Kill 10 of each and I'll buy you that car after you get out of jail, or you can use it to outrun the cops.

7/30/2008 9:33:31 AM

^^^yes, a rolling start is the standard now. it didn't used to be. the only point of bothering to consider that is that gm has been one of if not the last manufacturers to change. the zo6 was timed from a standing start. just something to consider when comparisons are made. there's also been some argument that gm is using a "normal" rolling start from somewhere just behind the line where as some of nissan's claimed times have supposedly been starting the clock as the car comes by at full tilt from a previous lap. it shouldn't matter how it's done, just that everything is kept equal or at the least any differences are considered.

the reason the gtr/z06 and spec v/zr1 are being so heavily compared is simple. they're all performance kings of production cars, and being offered at similar bargain pricing.

my main issue with the gtr (as i've said many times before) is simply how much shit has been talked about how it's going to wipe the floor with any competition, it's going to do this, that, blah blah blah. so far it hasn't lived up to all the hype. sure, you can blame some of that on the media. not nearly all of it though. is the gtr and the future spec v bad ass? hell yeah they are... and at a relative bargain. i don't deny that at all, and i don't think anyone can. they're cars that pretty much anyone can get into and drive close to the limit also with the awd, stability control, launch control, automatic, etc.

my other related problem with the gtr is how tight lipped they've become about everything now that attention has turned to them tweaking cars, what the actual numbers will be on the spec v, etc. they wanted the spotlight before, why don't they now? the previously had no problem making claims, issuing challenges, and giving out technical information. has their bluff been called and they realize they'll just look stupid by continuing it? has it been their plan all along to get all the attention until the gtr goes to the public, then build suspense to the release of the spec v? have they realized they opened their mouth too soon, and are now furiously making last minute changes to the spec v in an effort to be a clear winner over the zr1? who knows, only time will tell. i personally think they simply weren't planning on gm following through in releasing a car so much wilder than the zo6, and certainly not so soon. i don't see them just rolling over though, i think they've got something up their sleeve with the spec v. the japanese have always proven to be tricky bastards, in everything from war to cars. the only debate is whether they've had it planned all along, or were caught with their pants down.

Quote :

"You can do plenty more to its engine. Surely it's not topped out by any means."

oh, definitely not. as i mentioned a few weeks ago, there have already been some impressive gains with simple piggyback controllers in the public. that's a sign that they're not at their limit and they're not going to be incredibly hard to manipulate through tuning. hell, a nissan engineer himself has already admitted to some of the gtr's they've had on the ring and in other testing being well in excess of the stock hp yet using stock hardware. which also means any media reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt (as always, though). all of the sophisticated controls they're using isn't really new technology, it's just expanding upon existing system controls and finally being implemented into a production vehicle.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 4:35:49 PM

^I don't remember hearing Nissan bragging about their car other than the "2nd fastest production car around the Ring" or something like that (which I think was true for a time). Listing specs and publicizing pictures isn't bragging. I think both the fanboys and the naysayers are the ones who put the GTR up for #1 contention, not Nissan.

I think they're not giving out numbers on the VSPEC because they just don't have final numbers yet. I don't think they'd need to top the ZR1's Ring time or anything; all you'd need to do is up the boost to get 700hp Besides, in the past, the VSPEC package was just "improved suspension/Attessa system, badging, and rear air dam...some other aesthetic items." I haven't kept up with the news, but I wouldn't have thought they'd do anything drastic with power output.

I have no problem with the GTR being #2 to the whatever monster vette they're bringing out. Just gotta remember all the other awesome cars the two have left in the dust

Another thing that bothers me about GTR reviews is the whole "human driver vs computer driver" thing. So it's AWD and splits torque electronically among all 4 wheels. I rarely hear those complaints for the Evo; remember when customers were complaining about the lack of Active Yaw Control in the US models? Another thing for the GTR is that it has electronic gauges for everything you would want to know about the car. As awesome as that is, computer readouts =/= computer-controlled. People seem to consider them one and the same, including Clarkson on Top Gear.. even back when he reviewed the R34 skyline.

7/30/2008 5:48:37 PM

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080728.010/nissan-gt-r-spec-v-details-spilled

FWIW

Quote :

"Brace yourself: 520 hp at 6500 rpm, 440 lb.-ft. (596 Nm) of torque all the way from 3200 to 5200 rpm, 3615 lbs. (1640 kg), arrives early 2009, 2-seater, cost $130,000 USD, and reportedly laps the Ring faster than 7m 30 sec. - a dummy spec given the GT-R already does it in 7:29. Therefore, its a safe bet that the Spec V will crush the Corvette ZR-1 at 7 min 26 sec, despite the price almost doubling."

7/31/2008 11:52:58 AM

nice car and all

but for 130K

i think i'm going to be in something more like this: http://tinyurl.com/6rcdxw

7/31/2008 11:56:29 AM

yeah different personalities... i'd rather be fast and unseen

7/31/2008 1:10:44 PM

well i wouldn't get orange actually

but you know what i mean

..and i know what you mean

7/31/2008 1:14:17 PM

Indeed i do... if they make as many of these as Toyota did the supra etc. I'll certainly get a used one in a few years when the price drops but otherwise i would rather have something like a ford gt or along those lines... I want a car thats wicked fast but the factory isn't the only place to buy parts...

7/31/2008 1:17:08 PM

this wont be anything like the supra.

it's going to be limited run, limited market. This is Nissan's equivalent to the Ford GT. They made 1,500 for 2008. Likely will be around 2,000 units next year. That's WORLDWIDE.

This thing isn't going to price drop like a porsche or a corvette. It's not going to pricedrop any noticeable amount until warrantees start running out. So keep on dreaming about picking one up for 30k

7/31/2008 2:14:50 PM

^^^^^^^no, it was definitely nissan responsible for the majority of it. like i said, the media/fanboys are definitely partly to blame but not completely. if you go back to most of the early commentary from them when the car was first unveiled, much the initial testing, etc. they were throwing around a whole lot of big talk. they were definitely feeding a lot to the media somewhat anonymously as well via "inside sources". it was clear they wanted the spotlight, and didn't mind using the media and the fast and furious crowd to get it. now, they've gone mostly silent since the accusations of doctoring cars has come out, using non standard timing practices, along with some pressure to reveal some honest information. they might turn out to back it all up in the end. they just haven't yet imo. i hope they do, it's good for the sports car industry in general. friendly rivalries between brands is healthy, but as i mentioned in the new lotus thread, first and foremost as enthusiasts we should all want the best out of all the companies and support their endeavors to keep giving us what we want.

on the computer vs. human thing, i agree. there's going to be people complaining about it either way. it's just personal preference. some people want the car to give them as much as an edge as possible, some want to do everything themselves. i do think it's worth bringing up when you're comparing the ability of two vehicles though. obviously the driver is going to play a much more critical role in something without any computer controlled aids.

^^^^^^i see several problems there (as with so many of your fanboy worldcar postings):

-those power numbers have been reported to be the "official" specs for at least a month now. just because a major magazine publication has picked them up doesn't make them new or the truth.

-there is compelling evidence that the 7:29 car was actually a spec v tweaked to the neighborhood of 600hp. neither nissan or the driver tochio suzuki will directly deny this, only that it was a car that customers will get and it was on the base model dunlops (which are actually faster in the dry than the optional bridgestones). they won't disclose any other details or say that is wasn't a spec v.

-lets use simple common sense and basic laws of physics. we're supposed to believe that over a 13 mile track there is only THREE seconds difference between a car that supposedly has 100 less hp and weighs hundreds of pounds more than the zr1? give me a break. i don't care that it's awd and has so many driver aids, that doesn't add up unless a.) gm is sandbagging like hell or b.) the gtr used was FAR from stock.

-don't think we've seen the last of the corvette. i'll bet they'll be back with a real driver and a much improved time. it they start using backhanded tricks like nissan is accused of doing, it's going to get real ugly.

-130k (a 60k increase) is ridiculous for "only" 40hp and 200lbs. there's got to be a lot more to it or the price is a gross inflation.

^speaking in those terms, i don't understand how it's not exactly like the export mkIV supra? exact production numbers are a source of controversy in the community, but there were less than ~8k tt's and less than ~5k na's produced TOTAL over the 5 years they were made. ones in good condition are still bringing a very healthy chunk of their original msrp, and aftermarket modifications don't really affect that. rare colors can go for $50k+. i can agree it's not really comparable otherwise other than it's a 2+2 japanese sports coupe.


[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 2:27:49 PM

I totally agree with you Ivan.

Quote :

"Therefore, its a safe bet that the Spec V will crush the Corvette ZR-1 at 7 min 26 sec, despite the price almost doubling.""

For starters GM hasn't even put their ace in the hole test driver behind the wheel for a timed lap. Plus it seems like they keep upping the horsepower rating. Last I heard it was at 638 (up from 625)

So for $60k you get 40 more hp and about 200lbs less. For the ZR1 over the Z06 you shell out an extra $30-40k, an extra 100lbs, and about 130 more hp. Sounds like a much better deal.

7/31/2008 3:05:06 PM

Quote :

"speaking in those terms, i don't understand how it's not exactly like the export mkIV supra? exact production numbers are a source of controversy in the community, but there were less than ~8k tt's and less than ~5k na's produced TOTAL over the 5 years they were made. ones in good condition are still bringing a very healthy chunk of their original msrp, and aftermarket modifications don't really affect that. rare colors can go for $50k+. i can agree it's not really comparable otherwise other than it's a 2+2 japanese sports coupe. "

The Supra wasn't a 100k+ vehicle, even new from the factory. It was also built extremely conservatively from the factory. Yes in production rarity, it'll be a lot like the Supra. In terms of general price, I doubt it. You might find a GT-R in 3 years for 55-70k, but I think that's going to be the bottom end of the range.

7/31/2008 5:08:30 PM

^you're saying that in 3 years a used GT-R is still going to be $70k, its current MSRP? Highly doubtful, this isn't a Ferrari we're talking about.

7/31/2008 5:25:07 PM

^^wait, are you talking about the regular gtr or the gtr spec v? because the gtr isn't even close to 100k. the spec v will be that or more probably, but i'd say it's way too early to speculate any real number. there's also inflation to consider over the past 10-15 years.

^^^those 6xx numbers you're referring to are the numbers that have come out surrounding the 7:29 gtr. makes sense to me unless the gm engineer was taking a sunday drive.

[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 5:26:31 PM

^^^ and gas wasn't 4 dollars a gallon in 1993 either.... but the market it was competing against , vette,viper, skyline is the same...

[Edited on July 31, 2008 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2008 6:50:47 PM

Top Gear episodes 4 and 5 with the GTR were very impressive

8th fastest car they have had around their track

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_Test_Track#The_Power_Board

7/31/2008 7:55:21 PM

8/1/2008 12:05:34 AM

jeffy likes apples

8/1/2008 1:03:04 AM

HAHA yes... possibly the greatest line of the movie.

8/1/2008 1:49:07 AM

520hp

8/21/2008 1:40:00 AM

am I missing something? aren't they rated for 480?

8/21/2008 2:31:11 AM

^nope... you're just missing that Ragged=slowblack96=retarded.

wtf is that anyway? some ricers/rednecks having a car show in their back yard? yee haw!

i can't wait for one of these things to show up on the streets around here to get drug.

8/21/2008 7:34:07 AM

they're all rated at "atleast 480" each one is different.

plz continue.

8/21/2008 7:54:05 AM

Quote :

"From the beginning, the Nissan GT-R's performance figures seemed too good to be true. Weighing in at over 3,800 pounds and packing a claimed 480 hp, the 3.5-second sprint to 60 and 11.8-second quarter-mile time just didn't add up. And then the tests began... Buff books and online outlets began publishing 0-60 runs between 3.2 and 3.4 seconds, and quarter-mile times began dropping quicker than a co-ed's IQ on a nitrous binge. CARandDRIVER.com discovered a similar discrepancy between five different GT-Rs and finally decided to get some time on the dyno to get some real-world numbers. CARandDRIVER's first tester ran to 60 in 3.3 seconds and past the traps in 11.5 seconds at 124 mph, causing C&D's scribes to suspect that Nissan engineers cranked up the boost on the evaluation vehicle. Shortly thereafter, two more GT-Rs arrived at their offices, both recording significantly slower quarter mile times and confirming their suspicions. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented either vehicle from getting up on the rollers. That would have to wait until Tony Swan returned with his GT-R after campaigning in the One Lap of America. Surprisingly, Swan's GT-R performed exactly the same in performance tests as the first GT-R C&D tested. When they finally strapped it to MotorCity Speed's Mustang dyno, No. 4 put down 415 horsepower to the wheels, and with an estimated drivetrain loss of 20 percent (an average on most all-wheel-drive cars), that meant output was closer to 519 hp, rather than Nissan's claimed 480 hp. Not content to leave well-enough alone, CARandDRIVER procured a fifth GT-R, which returned almost identical 0-60 and quarter-mile times as the fourth vehicle, along with 420 hp at the wheels on the same dyno. You can read all the details at CARandDRIVER.com, hear Nissan's explanation for the discrepancy and see charts of both the dyno pulls and the boost levels on two of the five vehicles. "

Quote :

"Three weeks later, a fifth GT-R arrived. This one, allegedly, was a production version with the latest—and final—engine calibration. We took it both to the test track and MotorCity’s dyno. This car performed nearly identically to the fourth car. It smoked the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at 120 mph and produced 420 wheel horsepower. We also measured the turbo boost pressure in both cars, and the curves were basically identical. Though we didn’t get a chance to dyno-test the two slower GT-Rs, three of the five were so close in performance that we believe they accurately represent the GT-R’s capability. Clearly, Nissan is delivering more than the advertised 480 horsepower. And the most likely figure is about 520, which is yet another reason to bow to the best performance value since the Corvette Z06. "

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/larry_webster/what_is_the_gt_r_s_real_horsepower_column?cid=259

8/21/2008 8:55:12 AM

and yet more recent performance tests have shown a significant lose in performance. The last C&D'r GT-R tested couldn't hit 60 in less than 4.3 seconds.

me thinks the whole fleet of magazine cars were ringers

8/21/2008 9:12:11 AM

hope they arent gonna be like the rx8s when they first came out

8/21/2008 9:16:42 AM

^^^wow, i can't wave a bullshit flag big enough for that one. who is deciding on a 20% drivetrain loss? this isn't a "conventional" awd system by any stretch. if there's one thing the car does and should do, it's put the power to the ground. i think 10% is entirely more realistic, 15% max. hell, that's what nissan themself is even saying. not that anything they're saying can be taken too seriously obviously.

sometimes i really wonder how in the fuck these stupid magazines stay in business with articles like this. at best, it's downright ignorant of the facts reporting. it sounds more like some blatant nissan dick stroking though.

there are privately owned production cars out in the public now, lets see the REAL numbers.

Quote :

"hope they arent gonna be like the rx8s when they first came out"

what in the wide world of unrelated shit does that have to do with anything? yeah, i mean i hope they're not like the 1996 chevy impala ss when it came out. wtf?

Quote :

"they're all rated at "atleast 480" each one is different. plz continue."

no, why don't you plz continue explain how or why they'll be allowing a 40bhp difference? do you realize how significant of a deviation that is in terms of engine building even for some backyard grease monkey, much less a major manufactur like nissan? each one is different my ass, it's marketing bullshit plain and simple. they're far from the only company "hand making" engines. do you really think there aren't still very strict regulations and tolerances to be followed?

[Edited on August 21, 2008 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

8/21/2008 9:56:53 AM

^Ivan, I think what he meant by the RX-8 comment is that when the RX-8 came out it was overrated in engine horsepower. Mazda eventually lowed the power rating for the horsepower, instead of making modifications to meet the initial power rating.

8/21/2008 1:11:53 PM

Quote :

"ones in good condition are still bringing a very healthy chunk of their original msrp, and aftermarket modifications don't really affect that. rare colors can go for $50k+."

Yes, but don't forget that they did drop in price for several years. They were cheaper 6-8 years ago than they are now. Much cheaper. I remember seeing TT models for $14k-$20k back in the day.

8/21/2008 2:03:00 PM

Quote :

"no, why don't you plz continue explain how or why they'll be allowing a 40bhp difference? do you realize how significant of a deviation that is in terms of engine building even for some backyard grease monkey, much less a major manufactur like nissan? each one is different my ass, it's marketing bullshit plain and simple. they're far from the only company "hand making" engines. do you really think there aren't still very strict regulations and tolerances to be followed? "

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/supercars/nissan-gt-r-dyno-475hp-at-the-hubs/





Stock unless they have an ultra efficient driveline I'd say 520 at the engine isn't that far off (if not on the low side with the car being awd.

They are over rated some but they had issues with waste gate spring pressure consistency from the turbo manufacturer this combined with matching piston and rod weights (making some engines have heavier rotating mass than others etc.) also causes a variance in hp... so rather than people being able to sue or bitch about it they picked a generous minimum and stuck with it.

Again rabble rabble rabble i bitch just cause sumfoo1 said something rabble rabble rabble.

if you'd get off my nuts man i'd really appreciate it.

8/21/2008 2:10:18 PM

you seriously can't be this fucking stupid.

what the hell do you mean "if" they have an ultra efficient driveline? have you even bothered to read anything about the awd system and how it was designed? obviously not, or you wouldn't be filling this thread with more dumb.

do you have any comprehension of how different dynos work? the losses wheels and tires impose? mustang, dynojet, or dynapack? bothered to look at anything more recent than that link from DECEMBER 2007?

how about the difference in ps and hp? current requirements for sae hp certification?

any idea how many other cars have "hand assembled" engines? do you think this is new? it's marketing, plain and simple. if anything it only provides a higher degree of similarity and quality.

besides being entirely ignorant to any of these technical facts, you prove to lack basic fucking common sense continually. that's really all it takes to understand this, not expert automotive knowledge. especially for someone that claims to be an engineer. do you REALLY think a modern mass production auto manufacturer just randomly picks a "generous minimum" so they can build shit that far out of tolerance? hell no, give me a break. even if they had a monkey like you slapping the engines together in a shed out back with harbor freight hand tools you'd be hard pressed to get large differences. the motors might be hand assembled to an extent, but the parts aren't and it's still a very exact process. if you think manufacturing processes are still that flawed, i don't know what to tell you other than you've got a lot more reading to do on your google sites and magazines. this isn't the damn 1950's. accidental variances of 40hp aren't happening. no way, no how. period. got it?

8/21/2008 3:37:30 PM

you said absolutely nothing there but cutting me down..

dude i don't give a flying fuck how efficient you think the driveline is... there is not an awd driveline that can be more than 90% efficient.

As with all of your arguments on here you say that my evidence is bullshit but never ever ever provide any evidence to the contrary a redneck's word is gold i guess....

And the dyno comparison thing what are you saying that dyna packs actually make hp? and don't factor in drive train loss since they're connected to the hubs..?? yes i know the rotational mass of the wheels does farther reduce hp but all it takes is 9.5% loss to make that thing be 520hp at the crank... And yes i know all about the different types of dynos from eddy current to intertial hell i've even seen a hydrolic & from dynapack to rollers etc.


Yes 482 pferdestarke = 475.4 horsepower i already did the conversion.

you're bringing in all these technicalities to try to act like you're right and he's completely off base.. I'm in no way saying you're wrong I'm just saying he's not incorrect either. Now stop being a jackass and move on.

8/21/2008 3:47:18 PM

Quote :

"stop being a jackass and move on"

8/21/2008 6:31:21 PM

Quote :

"Ivan, I think what he meant by the RX-8 comment is that when the RX-8 came out it was overrated in engine horsepower. Mazda eventually lowed the power rating for the horsepower, instead of making modifications to meet the initial power rating. "

thank god someone pays attention to things when they are stated.

8/21/2008 8:42:45 PM

Quote :

"when the RX-8 came out it was overrated in every engine horsepower parameter known to man. they put the exhaust close enough to the gas tank to burn the evidence to the ground to cover their traces."

8/22/2008 7:48:19 AM

^^^^go back a reread all the questions i posed in my last post. if you find the FACTUAL answers to all of them, not just what you might think is right, you'll see my points. there's no need to argue any further until you read all about the technical aspects of the drivetrain, how many "ringers" have been confirmed to be out there, the inflated numbers of hub dynos, etc.

simply put, just take a little more effort to think about things you see or read rather than take them at face value. a lot of stuff about this car is very believable, and speculative conversation/debate is healthy and enjoyable. some of it is just stupid to even consider though. once you really think about it and do the research, it makes no logical sense. then there are still other things that to be true would have to defy the laws of physics (the 7:29 ring lap for example).

now quit acting like a spoiled 2yr old girl, and move on.

^^i don't know why i even bother with you at all. sumfoo1 at least managed to get a degree from ncsu, so he should have at least some capacity to learn. anyway, it had nothing to do with me not paying attention to your post, it's the fact that it was completely irrelevant to anything. bfd if they're both cars over rated by the manufacturer, it doesn't matter because they're nowhere in the same ballpark and it won't happen with the gtr. i alluded to why in my post above, but i'll say it AGAIN since you're the one not paying attention. the nissan is having (or had) the gtr sae certified for 480hp. hopefully i don't need to explain what that means, but you blabber back if i do.

even if that wasn't the case, it still doesn't make any sense. it's other people throwing out the 500+ power numbers, not nissan.

8/23/2008 2:12:34 AM

Again not trying to fight with you but in my personal experience i've noticed that

dynojet hp>dynapack hp> dyno dynamics with new software > mustang dyno > dyno dynamics with old software (DD did an update cause they were reading so low shops didn't want to publish #s)

8/23/2008 8:29:31 AM

exactly how much "personal" experience do you have with any sort of dyno? you know what you've read on the internet or heard someone say, that's about it.

you're missing the point anyway. i never said a dynapack wasn't mostly accurate. i'm saying you have to consider what the number it's registering means in terms of estimating numbers at the crank, especially on a car as efficient with drivetrain loss as the gtr is supposedly. dyno numbers no matter the machine or software are only as good as their interpretation. wheels and tires are wheels and tires for the most part, but the other parts along the way aren't. for example, where they might be 25% of the total parasitic loss on a conventional awd car, they might account for more like 50% of the total percentage of parasitic loss on the gtr.

again, there's also the substantial evidence that nissan has been putting cars out there to the press, other testers, etc. that are making a lot more power than what any REAL production model will.

8/24/2008 8:50:52 PM

Two fastest cars out right now. Side by Side

GTR / EG Hatch

8/25/2008 8:29:32 AM

^ehe, i laff'd

8/25/2008 11:02:30 AM