Nissan: GT-R News
#1886
Originally Posted by msl82
If you look closely at the pic of the guy driving it off the barge, you will notice he is yawning because the GT-R is such a bore to drive.
What is that, the 32nd time you've made a post that ended in "....because the GT-R is boring to drive." Thinly veiled sarcasm taken, give it a break already.
You're starting to remind me of a particular Hyundai fanboy around these parts.
...... and just for good measure, it still looks like the front was designed by 1 person, the fenders by another, the rear by yet another.... etc. etc.
#1888
Originally Posted by I Go To Costco
I see you still haven't come up with anything remotely close to a clever comeback to the standard "GT-R is ugly" or "I'd prefer [x] over the GT-R because of [x]."
What is that, the 32nd time you've made a post that ended in "....because the GT-R is boring to drive." Thinly veiled sarcasm taken, give it a break already.
Andy why do I need to give it up? As soon as someone here personally posts that they have driven it and says that his PERSONAL opinion is that it really is "boring to drive" compared to xxx, then maybe I'll give it up. But until then, if you don't want to see me mention that it's "boring to drive", then don't read my posts or ignore it...no one's holding a gun to your head.
With that said, I'm falling to sleep looking at those pictures because even watching someone else driving it is boring!
#1890
Originally Posted by eccjak
#1893
Originally Posted by MaximaPower
to each his own but man i dont see whats not to like...
#1895
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Because seeing it in person its too blocky/bulky looking. Big to the electronic wizardry and the powertrain, but looks
but same could be said about the R34 when it came out...big and bulky compared to R33/32
#1898
Is Nissan lying about GT-R horsepower? Pretty much.
...so the GT-R may actually have more than 480hp!!!
from New York Times Wheels blog
from New York Times Wheels blog
June 30, 2008, 2:28 pm
How Much Power Does the Nissan GT-R Really Have?
By Ezra Dyer
Tags: gt r, horsepower, Nissan
It seems like the only time you hear about car companies fudging horsepower numbers, it’s when they’re busted advertising more beans than are actually present in the under-hood burrito. Mazda got in trouble for exaggerating the 2001 Miata’s power output. Ford had to recall the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra when owners realized its motor fell about 20 horsepower short of its official numbers. In the early 2000’s, Hyundai offered its customers extended roadside assistance and warranties after several models suffered double-digit horsepower deficits.
I have a theory on where all those phantom ponies went: They’re under the hood of the new Nissan GT-R.
Like those other cars, the GT-R’s stated power — 480 horsepower — is a long way from reality. But in the case of the Nissan, the truth is that the car seems to have more power than they’re letting on. The question is, how much more?
Nissan knows, but the company is not saying. Peter Bedrosian, regional project manager for product planning, said that Nissan tests every GT-R production engine on a dynamometer, then records the horsepower and torque for that particular car.
“And can owners find out how much power their car’s motor puts out?” I asked.
That’s a no. I presume that the power printouts are sealed in a lead capsule and buried deep inside Mount Fuji under dead of night. So we’ll just have to make an educated guess.
Thanks to the principle of substitution, we can look at several aspects of the GT-R’s performance and deduce roughly what kind of firepower would be required to accomplish such feats.
For a corollary, the former N.B.A. point guard Spud Webb could dunk (and maybe, for all I know, still can). Spud Webb is 5-foot-7. If Webb told you his vertical leap was only 20 inches, you would conclude that Mr. Webb was understating his abilities and that someone of his height would need at least a 40-inch vertical to win the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest, which he did.
Likewise, the Nissan GT-R laps Germany’s Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes 29 seconds, which is very nearly the fastest time ever recorded by a production car. For reference, the Corvette Z06, which has 505 horsepower and weighs a whopping 700 pounds less than the GT-R, is 13 seconds slower, with a time of 7 minutes 42 seconds. So, the car with 25 fewer horsepower and 700 more pounds of weight is much, much faster than its rival? Something is rotten in the state of the S.A.E. horsepower laboratories.
I’ll grant you that there are many variables involved in a lap of the Nordschleife, and Nissan will point out that the GT-R has a sophisticated all-wheel-drive system that allows it to power neatly out of corners, while the Z06 is rear-wheel drive. But still … 13 seconds? We could presume that, based on this statistic alone, the GT-R must have at least as much power as the Z06, about 500 horses. But that still wouldn’t be close.
A clearer picture emerges at the drag strip. Basically, your quarter-mile time is influenced by a host of factors, most importantly the success of your launch off the line. But trap speed — the speed at which you finish the quarter-mile — is closely tied to horsepower and a car’s power-to-weight ratio.
It’s algebra: If you know your car’s weight, and you know the speed it reached in a quarter-mile, you can pretty much predict the amount of power required to produce that trap speed. Trap speed doesn’t lie. And the GT-R’s trap speeds give lie to that 480-horsepower rating.
The GT-R can hit 122 or 123 miles per hour in the quarter-mile. It weighs about 4,000 pounds, with driver. There are many calculators and equations devoted to divining horsepower numbers, and given this weight and trap speed, most of them peg the GT-R’s output between 550 horsepower on the conservative end and 580 horsepower on the “maybe on a cool day with a tailwind” side. But I would eat my time slips if this car doesn’t have at least 550 horsepower.
So why won’t Nissan just fess up? Maybe it’s for insurance reasons. Maybe it’s to appease the Japanese government, which regards the GT-R as a pavement-eating menace to civilized mankind. Or maybe it’s because it’s just more fun not to know. It adds to the legend. Because when someone asks you how much power your car makes, hard stats are boring. It’s much more entertaining to say, “480 horsepower, officially,” then, in a conspiratorial tone, confide, “but everyone knows it’s got more.”
How Much Power Does the Nissan GT-R Really Have?
By Ezra Dyer
Tags: gt r, horsepower, Nissan
It seems like the only time you hear about car companies fudging horsepower numbers, it’s when they’re busted advertising more beans than are actually present in the under-hood burrito. Mazda got in trouble for exaggerating the 2001 Miata’s power output. Ford had to recall the 1999 SVT Mustang Cobra when owners realized its motor fell about 20 horsepower short of its official numbers. In the early 2000’s, Hyundai offered its customers extended roadside assistance and warranties after several models suffered double-digit horsepower deficits.
I have a theory on where all those phantom ponies went: They’re under the hood of the new Nissan GT-R.
Like those other cars, the GT-R’s stated power — 480 horsepower — is a long way from reality. But in the case of the Nissan, the truth is that the car seems to have more power than they’re letting on. The question is, how much more?
Nissan knows, but the company is not saying. Peter Bedrosian, regional project manager for product planning, said that Nissan tests every GT-R production engine on a dynamometer, then records the horsepower and torque for that particular car.
“And can owners find out how much power their car’s motor puts out?” I asked.
That’s a no. I presume that the power printouts are sealed in a lead capsule and buried deep inside Mount Fuji under dead of night. So we’ll just have to make an educated guess.
Thanks to the principle of substitution, we can look at several aspects of the GT-R’s performance and deduce roughly what kind of firepower would be required to accomplish such feats.
For a corollary, the former N.B.A. point guard Spud Webb could dunk (and maybe, for all I know, still can). Spud Webb is 5-foot-7. If Webb told you his vertical leap was only 20 inches, you would conclude that Mr. Webb was understating his abilities and that someone of his height would need at least a 40-inch vertical to win the 1986 NBA Slam Dunk Contest, which he did.
Likewise, the Nissan GT-R laps Germany’s Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes 29 seconds, which is very nearly the fastest time ever recorded by a production car. For reference, the Corvette Z06, which has 505 horsepower and weighs a whopping 700 pounds less than the GT-R, is 13 seconds slower, with a time of 7 minutes 42 seconds. So, the car with 25 fewer horsepower and 700 more pounds of weight is much, much faster than its rival? Something is rotten in the state of the S.A.E. horsepower laboratories.
I’ll grant you that there are many variables involved in a lap of the Nordschleife, and Nissan will point out that the GT-R has a sophisticated all-wheel-drive system that allows it to power neatly out of corners, while the Z06 is rear-wheel drive. But still … 13 seconds? We could presume that, based on this statistic alone, the GT-R must have at least as much power as the Z06, about 500 horses. But that still wouldn’t be close.
A clearer picture emerges at the drag strip. Basically, your quarter-mile time is influenced by a host of factors, most importantly the success of your launch off the line. But trap speed — the speed at which you finish the quarter-mile — is closely tied to horsepower and a car’s power-to-weight ratio.
It’s algebra: If you know your car’s weight, and you know the speed it reached in a quarter-mile, you can pretty much predict the amount of power required to produce that trap speed. Trap speed doesn’t lie. And the GT-R’s trap speeds give lie to that 480-horsepower rating.
The GT-R can hit 122 or 123 miles per hour in the quarter-mile. It weighs about 4,000 pounds, with driver. There are many calculators and equations devoted to divining horsepower numbers, and given this weight and trap speed, most of them peg the GT-R’s output between 550 horsepower on the conservative end and 580 horsepower on the “maybe on a cool day with a tailwind” side. But I would eat my time slips if this car doesn’t have at least 550 horsepower.
So why won’t Nissan just fess up? Maybe it’s for insurance reasons. Maybe it’s to appease the Japanese government, which regards the GT-R as a pavement-eating menace to civilized mankind. Or maybe it’s because it’s just more fun not to know. It adds to the legend. Because when someone asks you how much power your car makes, hard stats are boring. It’s much more entertaining to say, “480 horsepower, officially,” then, in a conspiratorial tone, confide, “but everyone knows it’s got more.”
#1902
Motortrend dynoed it a few issues back and they concluded it was creating more HP than Nissan was advertising. (not really knowing how much drivetrain loss it had but estimated something on the low side like 10%)
#1905
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Motortrend dynoed it a few issues back and they concluded it was creating more HP than Nissan was advertising. (not really knowing how much drivetrain loss it had but estimated something on the low side like 10%)
Last edited by DAYTA; 07-01-2008 at 09:48 AM.
#1907
The excuses are getting old...
- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
#1908
Originally Posted by vishnus11
- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
#1910
Originally Posted by vishnus11
- The GT-R is too heavy (despite the fact that it ways the same as a Ferrari 599GTB, and I don't see anyone complaining about that)
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
- The GT-R has no soul (because the folks on this forum that are saying that have driven one right?)
- The GT-R is ugly (please get your eyes checked. Distinctive, yes...ugly, no way. For ugly, please see Chrysler Sebring, Pontiac Aztek, and Ssanyong whatever)
- The GT-R has a hood prop (if Ferrari had one in the Scuderia people would praise its lightweight)
The fact that this car brings all these lame excuses out of the woodwork just highlights the fact that this car pushes the boundaries of what can be done, and folks are having to resort to all sorts of excuses to compensate.
- "No soul", I thought this at first, may have been to first one to post it. But it's performance is truly amazing, I guess that can equate to soul.
- Whether the GT-R is ugly or not is again subjective. You like how it looks, I don't.
- Hood prop, never heard this. Whoever has a problem with a hood prop needs his head examined
#1914
Originally Posted by cmschmie
- The GT-R is heavy, too heavy is subjective
- "No soul", I thought this at first, may have been to first one to post it. But it's performance is truly amazing, I guess that can equate to soul.
- Whether the GT-R is ugly or not is again subjective. You like how it looks, I don't.
- Hood prop, never heard this. Whoever has a problem with a hood prop needs his head examined
The Aztek and Sebring are butt fugly, while the GT-R is ugly. Its quite a broad spectrum, with the Aztek being on the very very far end.... it pretty much is the end. The GT-R is hardly attractive IMO, in person it looks huge, I like wide stances but it looks very tall for a coupe. Sleek looking is the absolute last thing that comes to mind.
My car when it was new costs 1/3 of the GT-R and it has hood shocks. Minor detail but when you're working on your car its a welcome sign of attention to detail, or a lack thereof in this case, but its not a HUGE deal. Its just that whenever someone makes a note of something, GT-R fans blow it WAY out of proportion and make it sound as if people are making it a big deal, when in reality its the other way around. For reference, see: comparison of GT-R's looks to Aztek's looks
And its just like how people praise the NSX-R for its weight-saving mesh shift boot Love the NSX-R but its so corny to point something like that out.
So basically what he's saying is "if there are haters, then you're doing something right." I guess the Ackalacks and 50 Cents of society would be inclined to agree...
I don't see anyone complaining or even commenting about the driving feel or driving dynamics of the GT-R. What people ARE complaining about is a lack of a manual transmission (which many of us have or have driven before), weight, which many of us also have experience with, and the looks, which literally are as clear as day.
For the record I used to think the new Evo X was ugly, whereas I really liked the Evo IX and pretty much every Evo before it (same goes for the R34 and its predecessors) except one thing that never grew on me was the looks of the GT-R and the Evo X has an option of a 5-speed which is better than no manual and has happened to grow on me.
#1915
Originally Posted by Maximized
Anyone catch the lap times in the latest C&D? I am still skeptical of Nissan's published times and the C&D tests only further that suspicion.
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
#1916
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
#1917
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
#1918
Originally Posted by srika
did you see the lap times above?
#1919
Originally Posted by vishnus11
So your skeptical of Edmunds, R&T, MT, EVO, CAR, and pretty much every major publication in the world who has posted performance data for the GT-R that IS QUICKER than Nissan's published times?
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
And before you jump on the 'pre-production prototype' or 'Nissan juiced them' bandwagon, remember that a large portion of these test were done with CUSTOMER cars.
C&D is the only publication to have reported above average 0-60 times, even though they themselves tested a quicker GT-R. They speculate that the example they tested might have been abused or crippled in some way, but either way, this is the same publication that picked a M3 over a 911TT.
I remember R&T getting 0-60 times of 4.0seconds and 1/4 times of 12+ for the Z06 when other major mags were getting low 3s. Doesn't mean that I should be skeptical of Chevy. Just means that on THAT day in THAT car, R&T happened to get time that were far above average for what that particular vehicle could do.
Price had a huge part in the rating... IIRC