Gt-r no dino.
-
what is the gt-r’s real horsepower?
despite what nissan claims, the gt-r is not making the advertised 480 horsepower.
by larry webster, photography by jeffrey g. russell
october 2008
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/colum…rsepower_column
“it’s a ringer,” we said among ourselves as soon as the first nissan gt-r’s test results were in. despite a power-to-weight ratio that’s 30 percent worse than that of the similarly priced corvette z06, that first gt-r outran the z06 to 60 mph (3.3 seconds versus 3.4 for the quickest z06 we’ve tested) and through the quarter-mile (11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125). even allowing for the launch advantages of all-wheel drive, the gt-r’s performance made us suspicious. it wouldn’t be hard for nissan engineers, we surmised, to crank up the boost and thus jack up horsepower that would result in astonishing track numbers in american car-magazine tests. the gt-r was in such demand and our allotted time with it was so short, however, that we didn’t have time to strap it onto a chassis dyno and measure the horsepower.
we soon tested two more gt-rs, and supporting our suspicions, they were considerably slower. gt-r no. 2 was 0.6 second behind the no. 1 through the quarter, and gt-r numero tres was a disturbing 1.1 seconds slower. again, we didn’t have enough time to dyno-test those cars, but it seemed clear that the first gt-r was likely a one-of-a-kind rocket.
we finally got the opportunity to run a gt-r on a chassis dyno in may after tony swan returned with the example he used for the one lap of america competition. the only problem with that car—no. 4 in our series—was that it performed about as well as the first. there were some differences, as you can see in the chart below, but those can easily be chalked up to the fact that the cars were tested on different days at different tracks. yes, we do perform a weather correction to account for much of the ambient-condition difference, but no correction is perfect.
a brief primer on the mustang chassis dyno we used: picture a pair of parallel, supersized rolling pins mounted in the floor. the car is strapped down so that the front wheels are on one roller and the rears on the other. the operator puts the car in gear and, via the tires, spins these rollers, which are attached to a device that measures the applied force. a computer that ties into the car’s diagnostic plug and reads engine rpm calculates the horsepower. this power figure is what’s known as “wheel horsepower,” and it’s less than the engine horsepower that’s listed in our specs because the drivetrain components—transmission, driveshafts, bearings, differential—all have internal friction that soaks up power. how much power is lost in the journey to the road is not accurately known, but a 15-percent loss for rear-drive cars with manual transmissions and a near 20-percent loss for four-wheel-drive cars are good estimates.
on motorcity speed’s mustang dyno in commerce township, michigan, gt-r no. 4 produced a peak of 415 horsepower at the wheels. based on our 20-percent loss estimate, the engine output was 519, or 39 horsepower more than nissan’s stated 480.
so what’s upo we called nissan, and the company says the first four cars we tested were early-build versions that received regular engine-computer software updates, which may account for the varied results we recorded. we then wondered which engine-computer calibration was the one real-world gt-r buyers would receive.
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.autoblog.com/2008/08/20/lies-da…five-nissan-gt/
lies, damn lies and hp ratings: c&d dynos five nissan gt-rs
_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._
agora vao falar q o dino dos caras roubam q nem uns magicos de sp ai q todo mundo usa como referencia… onde carro de 723 cvs da 557 na roda em outros lugares...
-
eu já sabia
japa-jaca ???
ps: falam tão facilmente de up-s no gt-r….....mas eu queria então ver o zr-1 com uns slicks e mais pressão no blower......... só isso.......
-
besteira. igua ao teste da motor trend.
aliás, o gt-r que a motor trend mediu emplacou uma potência nas roda maior ainda.
é besteira porque eles ficam brincando de chutar a perda de potência na transmissão.
eles só se esquecem de que a nissan já divulgou esse valor.
são 10% de perda.
peguem os valores e façam as contas.
-
besteira. igua ao teste da motor trend.
aliás, o gt-r que a motor trend mediu emplacou uma potência nas roda maior ainda.
é besteira porque eles ficam brincando de chutar a perda de potência na transmissão.
eles só se esquecem de que a nissan já divulgou esse valor.
são 10% de perda.
peguem os valores e façam as contas.
e ponto
se querem saber a potencia no motor, coloquem o motor em dino de bancada… isto parece matéria da fullpower...
-
galera do gt-r não dá o braço a torcer…. hehehee....
-
galera do toddynho fica questionando 0,000001% de correção de perda e etc…..
não dá pra ver que com 10 ou 15 ou 20% de perda que se use, mesmo assim a potencia do gt-r vai ser completamente diferente do que a fabriga divulga, assim como sempre os japas fizeram com seus esportivos, desde os tempos de sky-jaca, supra, nsx e afins ?
como vocês são chatos, crédo..........
