boosted98gst Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 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. Gallery: Car and Driver dyno five Nissan GT-Rs 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. When the vspec comes out its going to be awsome, bigger turbos, better suspension, the whole 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Why does everyone still think it's a bid deal when a turbo car is "underrated" from the factory? Has anyone noticed the trend here with turbo cars? Let me help some of you understand. Turbo cars can vary significantly according to conditions and how the auto is built to perform, ie; ecu programming, hot days hurting the i/c and how much it affects it, etc, etc, etc. Also, the more powerful the car, the more each variational percentage has an affect creating an even larger hp spread. Therefore, the factory gives a kind of "worst case" scenario figure. This protects them from any "false hp advertising" backlash and whatnot. There ya go. That's the super quick explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksrt4 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 i dont see what the big deal is. So they are under rating ther cars. Something almost every muscle car maker did in the late 60's. But if they did beef up tester that went to the media thats fucked up. I also igree imurobgyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRed Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Exactly, underating turbo cars from the factory seems to be very common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I <3 turbo cars. Just think 519 stock. Just add 1-2psi 550-570 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmezz13 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 under rated is not a problem, over rated is a problem... i don't get what you mean by all this?... Also i want to see what upgrades they come up with for this car and how long it takes someone to figure out how to make it faster.... rumor has it Nissan made this one extremely hard to alter... Regardless of any rumors about 0-60 times, the car has been tested many times, has a launch system that a child could operate and get 0-60 in 3.2-3.4 seconds. Its an amazing car. The thing i like best is its 480 (519) and the ZR-1 is what 620 (?) and the 0-60 is faster than that(compare 3.3 to the ZR1 3.47ish), which i am sure the ZR is a lot lighter, i guess AWD is the difference maker there, wonder what 1/4 mile times are? I bet the ZR takes.... anyway GTR is amazing and beats anything under $100k and a lot of cars over $100k.... My only complaint is doing away with using the inline 6 from the late skylines.... the RB26 is every bit as capable as a 2jz, and we know what they can do... so why not keep it? they know something we don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 i dont see what the big deal is. So they are under rating ther cars. Something almost every muscle car maker did in the late 60's. I would say in all honesty "most" of the muscle cars were actually over rated, all for the exception of a few. (COPO ZL1 Camaro-example) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 It's still ugly. I'd rather own a Zo6 or a ZR1 for more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiOn19s Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I passed a GTR several times at Mid Ohio on Monday/Tuesday...it was not due to a lack of straight line speed however. He could exit a turn with much less speed and then suddenly pull on me like I was standing still. Luckily for me he actually watched his mirrors and was nice enough to hit the brakes to slow and let me pass. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotarded1647545491 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 under rated is not a problem, over rated is a problem... i don't get what you mean by all this?... Also i want to see what upgrades they come up with for this car and how long it takes someone to figure out how to make it faster.... rumor has it Nissan made this one extremely hard to alter... Regardless of any rumors about 0-60 times, the car has been tested many times, has a launch system that a child could operate and get 0-60 in 3.2-3.4 seconds. Its an amazing car. The thing i like best is its 480 (519) and the ZR-1 is what 620 (?) and the 0-60 is faster than that(compare 3.3 to the ZR1 3.47ish), which i am sure the ZR is a lot lighter, i guess AWD is the difference maker there, wonder what 1/4 mile times are? I bet the ZR takes.... anyway GTR is amazing and beats anything under $100k and a lot of cars over $100k.... My only complaint is doing away with using the inline 6 from the late skylines.... the RB26 is every bit as capable as a 2jz, and we know what they can do... so why not keep it? they know something we don't... ellipses...show...you...cannot...complete...a...thought...or...do....not...have...a...grasp...of...proper...punctuation... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I want to start seeing dyno numbers from PRODUCTION cars, not pre-production test mules, press cars, and other oddity cars. From something your average guy on a waiting list got off the lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Tony Swaaaaaan? I'd look for other, more reliable data. C n D produces as much news as they report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 under rated is not a problem, over rated is a problem. No, underated is a problem. You are required by law to correctly state the performance of a vehicle if you want to sell it in the heavily insured U.S. of A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmezz13 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 ellipses...show...you...cannot...complete...a...thought...or...do....not...have...a...grasp...of...proper...punctuation... 1050+ posts.... -rep for posting crap like this and wasting space... grammar nazi, more like wasting space where reliable information could have been used. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosted98gst Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 under rated is not a problem, over rated is a problem... i don't get what you mean by all this?... Also i want to see what upgrades they come up with for this car and how long it takes someone to figure out how to make it faster.... rumor has it Nissan made this one extremely hard to alter... Regardless of any rumors about 0-60 times, the car has been tested many times, has a launch system that a child could operate and get 0-60 in 3.2-3.4 seconds. Its an amazing car. The thing i like best is its 480 (519) and the ZR-1 is what 620 (?) and the 0-60 is faster than that(compare 3.3 to the ZR1 3.47ish), which i am sure the ZR is a lot lighter, i guess AWD is the difference maker there, wonder what 1/4 mile times are? I bet the ZR takes.... anyway GTR is amazing and beats anything under $100k and a lot of cars over $100k.... My only complaint is doing away with using the inline 6 from the late skylines.... the RB26 is every bit as capable as a 2jz, and we know what they can do... so why not keep it? they know something we don't... Mines is the only company that has hacked the GTR computer they already a production ecu's flash programs you can buy for the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiColin Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I saw one out on 33 by scotts lawn the other day, didn't look to bad rolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customhillbilly Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Saw one last weekend at the Woodward dream cruise. A little out of it's element, but it looked sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotarded1647545491 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 1050+ posts.... -rep for posting crap like this and wasting space... grammar nazi, more like wasting space where reliable information could have been used. Oh snap - rep. I'm shedding a tear. Punch your english teacher for me. ...and I know nothing about Skylines. Just ask my garage: http://usera.imagecave.com/Rotarded/Skyline1-copy.jpg Information: The RB26DETT was more than proven. I'm not a fan of the new engine, yet. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 ^ I have to jump on the RB26 bandwagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Apex Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 Underrating is nothing new like said. A buddy of mine put down 309whp on his LT4 C4 vette bone stock, it was rated at 330hp!! It's still 3800lbs of ugly that I would probably drive if I could afford it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosted98gst Posted August 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 Oh snap - rep. I'm shedding a tear. Punch your english teacher for me. ...and I know nothing about Skylines. Just ask my garage: http://usera.imagecave.com/Rotarded/Skyline1-copy.jpg Information: The RB26DETT was more than proven. I'm not a fan of the new engine, yet. I love my rb26dett. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brizanden Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 also quick comment im sure the nissan guys know about. every skyline was underrated on hp; although, it was for diff reasons in the past ,kw limits in japan i believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmezz13 Posted August 23, 2008 Report Share Posted August 23, 2008 Oh snap - rep. I'm shedding a tear. Punch your english teacher for me. ...and I know nothing about Skylines. Just ask my garage: http://usera.imagecave.com/Rotarded/Skyline1-copy.jpg Information: The RB26DETT was more than proven. I'm not a fan of the new engine, yet. I actually didn't give you any neg rep until i saw this... i like whats in the car thats in your garage, but not really a fan of the R33... i don't know what is is either... i'm a sucker for the R32 tho... Did you disable the hicas on that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 24, 2008 Report Share Posted August 24, 2008 ...and I know nothing about Skylines. Just ask my garage: http://usera.imagecave.com/Rotarded/Skyline1-copy.jpg Know nothin bout washin it, sheesh! I'll give yo positive rep for trying to get the kids to use Englishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbird Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I thought it had something to do with companies honoring eachother, or something. Honda, Mazda, and Toyota (nsx, rx-7, supra) all agreed not to go higher than ~280hp. They still did, but underrated them to cover it up. This is just what I heard from some guy somewhere, could be completely wrong. It was a "gentlemens" agreement. There was a period in time where(you were correct), cars in Japan were limited to 280hp. The R34 Skyline GT-R however was closer to 330, if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.