Godzilla strikes back at King Kong on the Green Hell !!!!!
03-10-09, 11:29 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Godzilla strikes back at King Kong on the Green Hell !!!!!
I know many of us GTR enthusiasts ( and haters) knew this strike back against the vette was in the mail. Godzilla will not be beaten !!!!!!
It wasn't long ago that the public spitting contest between Nissan and Porsche regarding the GT-R's lap time around the famed Nurburgring was in the spotlight. Nissan started the tussle by recording an astonishing lap time of 7m 38s around the benchmark circuit and then withered this down to just 7m 29s – a full three seconds faster than the lighter and more powerful Porsche 911 GT2.
Porsche struck back with claims the GT-R was only capable of finishing the 12.9 mile circuit in around 7m 54s, and that the model used for the laps must have been modified. Nissan then retaliated by releasing a video of the run as well as presenting the actual car used so that it could be independently examined as completely stock.
To lay the matter to rest once and for all, Nissan will be running its updated 2010 ‘Series II’ GT-R around the Nurburgring once again - and the lap times are expected to be even better than last year's model. Differences between the 2010 model and the outgoing version include a 5hp (4kW) bump in power, a slightly modified suspension setup, stickier tires, and a reprogrammed gearbox.
Nissan's head driver and former F1 racer Toshio Suzuki confirmed to GTRBlog that the new car will be taking to the track once again. He also revealed that he expects it to be four to five seconds quicker than last year's car. This means that it may post lap times as fast as 7m 24s – more than two seconds faster than the mighty Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, which posted a lap time of 7m 26.4s last year.
The story gets even more interesting as Suzuki also confirmed that the new SpecV variant of the GT-R will also be taking to the Green Hell, and with its lighter weight figures and improved braking system it should be significantly quicker than the standard GT-R.
Suzuki and his team of Nissan engineers will arrive at the Nurburgring in the middle of next month to post the new lap times.
It wasn't long ago that the public spitting contest between Nissan and Porsche regarding the GT-R's lap time around the famed Nurburgring was in the spotlight. Nissan started the tussle by recording an astonishing lap time of 7m 38s around the benchmark circuit and then withered this down to just 7m 29s – a full three seconds faster than the lighter and more powerful Porsche 911 GT2.
Porsche struck back with claims the GT-R was only capable of finishing the 12.9 mile circuit in around 7m 54s, and that the model used for the laps must have been modified. Nissan then retaliated by releasing a video of the run as well as presenting the actual car used so that it could be independently examined as completely stock.
To lay the matter to rest once and for all, Nissan will be running its updated 2010 ‘Series II’ GT-R around the Nurburgring once again - and the lap times are expected to be even better than last year's model. Differences between the 2010 model and the outgoing version include a 5hp (4kW) bump in power, a slightly modified suspension setup, stickier tires, and a reprogrammed gearbox.
Nissan's head driver and former F1 racer Toshio Suzuki confirmed to GTRBlog that the new car will be taking to the track once again. He also revealed that he expects it to be four to five seconds quicker than last year's car. This means that it may post lap times as fast as 7m 24s – more than two seconds faster than the mighty Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, which posted a lap time of 7m 26.4s last year.
The story gets even more interesting as Suzuki also confirmed that the new SpecV variant of the GT-R will also be taking to the Green Hell, and with its lighter weight figures and improved braking system it should be significantly quicker than the standard GT-R.
Suzuki and his team of Nissan engineers will arrive at the Nurburgring in the middle of next month to post the new lap times.
03-11-09, 05:05 AM
#4
Pole Position
Pos Make / Model Time
1. Radical SR8 6:55 (IFC)
2. Donkervoort D8 RS 7:14.89 (IFC)
3. Radical SR3 Turbo 7:19 (IFC)
4. Dodge Viper ACR 7:22.1 (FC)
5. Maserati MC12 7:24.29 (IT)
6. P Zonda F Clubsport 7:24.65 (IT)
7. Ferrari Enzo 7:25.21
8. Corvette ZR1 7:26.4 (FC)
9. Porsche Carrera GT 7:28 (IT)
10. Nissan GT-R 7:29 (FC)
11. Porsche 997 GT2 7:31 (FC)
1. Radical SR8 6:55 (IFC)
2. Donkervoort D8 RS 7:14.89 (IFC)
3. Radical SR3 Turbo 7:19 (IFC)
4. Dodge Viper ACR 7:22.1 (FC)
5. Maserati MC12 7:24.29 (IT)
6. P Zonda F Clubsport 7:24.65 (IT)
7. Ferrari Enzo 7:25.21
8. Corvette ZR1 7:26.4 (FC)
9. Porsche Carrera GT 7:28 (IT)
10. Nissan GT-R 7:29 (FC)
11. Porsche 997 GT2 7:31 (FC)
Last edited by ndk83; 03-11-09 at 05:18 AM.
03-11-09, 08:18 AM
#5
Keeper of the light
iTrader: (17)
They should work on that name.... who are you going to tell you drive a "donkervoort". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_D8_front.jpg
03-11-09, 08:22 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles/Vancouver
Posts: 6,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should work on that name.... who are you going to tell you drive a "donkervoort". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_D8_front.jpg
and whatever happened to caterham or just that no one has tested it on the ring yet?
Trending Topics
03-11-09, 08:45 AM
#8
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-11-09, 10:23 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
03-12-09, 12:32 AM
#10
Lexus Champion
Sorry, but I don't get this post???
The assumption is that the new version will actually be faster than the original Ring time. But the whole controversy is that the 7:29 time was with an originally modified GT-R. 7:29 has never been repeated or verified.
Porsche only came up with 7:54, which, of course, everyone believes to be sand bagging to save face.
I don't know or suggest what a stock GT-R will actually do around the Ring, but I'm guessing that it's somewhere between the two numbers. (And let me be clear, I think the Nissan is an incredible car that I had a lot of fun getting smoked by
).
To suggest that a GT-R with only an additional 5 hp and some minor tweaks will post 7:24 and beat the new ZR1 is absurd.
I'll be happy to eat my words when actual numbers are posted, but I'd be happy to make a friendly wager that it won't happen.
The assumption is that the new version will actually be faster than the original Ring time. But the whole controversy is that the 7:29 time was with an originally modified GT-R. 7:29 has never been repeated or verified.
Porsche only came up with 7:54, which, of course, everyone believes to be sand bagging to save face.
I don't know or suggest what a stock GT-R will actually do around the Ring, but I'm guessing that it's somewhere between the two numbers. (And let me be clear, I think the Nissan is an incredible car that I had a lot of fun getting smoked by
).To suggest that a GT-R with only an additional 5 hp and some minor tweaks will post 7:24 and beat the new ZR1 is absurd.
I'll be happy to eat my words when actual numbers are posted, but I'd be happy to make a friendly wager that it won't happen.
03-12-09, 06:38 AM
#11
Thank you, at least there's someone rational here.
A stock GT-R did NOT run 7:29, those were not stock GTRs in the magazine tests, and the GTR makes far more than 480hp. Guilly thinks it is only 550hp over at SF; and I agree with that for the stock cars, I think the test cars were north of 600.
No need to make any friendly wagers, there is documented proof that GTRs dont make 480hp and that the magazine cars made more way more power than stock. Trap speeds of enthusiasts and magazines tell all.
Enthusiasts get traps anywhere from 114-118mph, while the magazines routinely trapped 122-124mph (thats near Z06 territory). To most of the me-too crowd here, that means nothing; because they only care about 0-60 times and how fast a car is claimed to be at the 'ring. For those that know even elementary physics and know what trap-speeds are; a 3800-3900lb car that runs a 124mph trap makes A LOT of power. For a comparison; the Z06 weighs in around 3100lbs, actually makes about 505hp and runs about 125-126mph traps.
A stock GT-R did NOT run 7:29, those were not stock GTRs in the magazine tests, and the GTR makes far more than 480hp. Guilly thinks it is only 550hp over at SF; and I agree with that for the stock cars, I think the test cars were north of 600.
No need to make any friendly wagers, there is documented proof that GTRs dont make 480hp and that the magazine cars made more way more power than stock. Trap speeds of enthusiasts and magazines tell all.
Enthusiasts get traps anywhere from 114-118mph, while the magazines routinely trapped 122-124mph (thats near Z06 territory). To most of the me-too crowd here, that means nothing; because they only care about 0-60 times and how fast a car is claimed to be at the 'ring. For those that know even elementary physics and know what trap-speeds are; a 3800-3900lb car that runs a 124mph trap makes A LOT of power. For a comparison; the Z06 weighs in around 3100lbs, actually makes about 505hp and runs about 125-126mph traps.
Last edited by Bean; 03-12-09 at 06:42 AM.
03-12-09, 07:25 AM
#12
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, at least there's someone rational here.
A stock GT-R did NOT run 7:29, those were not stock GTRs in the magazine tests, and the GTR makes far more than 480hp. Guilly thinks it is only 550hp over at SF; and I agree with that for the stock cars, I think the test cars were north of 600.
No need to make any friendly wagers, there is documented proof that GTRs dont make 480hp and that the magazine cars made more way more power than stock. Trap speeds of enthusiasts and magazines tell all.
A stock GT-R did NOT run 7:29, those were not stock GTRs in the magazine tests, and the GTR makes far more than 480hp. Guilly thinks it is only 550hp over at SF; and I agree with that for the stock cars, I think the test cars were north of 600.
No need to make any friendly wagers, there is documented proof that GTRs dont make 480hp and that the magazine cars made more way more power than stock. Trap speeds of enthusiasts and magazines tell all.
And please show the proof that the cars supplied to magazines were more powerful than the production car.
What is the GT-R’s Real Horsepower?
Despite what Nissan claims, the GT-R is not making the advertised 480 horsepower.
“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 up? 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.caranddriver.com/features...sepower_column
03-12-09, 10:56 AM
#13
Sure! Since you're quoting C&D times, please tell me what dyno they used? A Mustang Dyno... an AWD Mustang dyno. In fact, no AWD dyno is very accurate or comparable to the typical Dynojet dyno that so many people use these days. You can only compare them to other AWD cars. Go ask the Evolution guys about that one. These magazine journalists are hardly "enthusiasts".
And the last paragraph (that you bolded for some reason) shows that the 2 "early production" (ROFLMAO) cars that they had different times with, they never dynoed.
I'm not saying its major modifications here; anyone who knows anything about turbo-cars is that its VERY easy to make substantial power gains with them.
(11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125) on the first test car
speedflex, think here for just a second. Do you think the 4th test car at 120mph traps was making anywhere near the power that the 1st car was? Do you know what kind of a difference that 4mph in trap speed is? Please check the enthusiasts times checkered all over the internet for proof. They generally get into the 115-119mph range.
At 124mph vs 125mph, the first GTR was making similar power to weight numbers versus the Z06. So do the math and we'll keep it simple here: Z06 weight? ~3180lbs GTR weight? ~3836. Z06 dyno in RWHP? ~435 on average
We'll do some ratio math: 3180/435 = 3836/x
x = 524
Now let that sink in..............
assuming 20% drivetrain loss (which, the GTR has a pretty efficient drivetrain; that number is a bit conservative)... 524whp / .80 = ~656hp
Yes, I know that drivetrain math isn't that simple. Yes, the GTR in the test was making slightly less power than the Z06, so a direct ratio-check doesn't yield the correct numbers. Yes, I know there are more factors at work here. Yes, I know that the GTR has a better drivetrain which better utilizies its own powerband than the Z06 does. You still can't escape from the numbers pointing in the direction of a big Nissan lie. Even if you give some headroom for all these factors; the 1st GTR is still making around 600hp or more.
QED
And the last paragraph (that you bolded for some reason) shows that the 2 "early production" (ROFLMAO) cars that they had different times with, they never dynoed.
I'm not saying its major modifications here; anyone who knows anything about turbo-cars is that its VERY easy to make substantial power gains with them.
(11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125) on the first test car
speedflex, think here for just a second. Do you think the 4th test car at 120mph traps was making anywhere near the power that the 1st car was? Do you know what kind of a difference that 4mph in trap speed is? Please check the enthusiasts times checkered all over the internet for proof. They generally get into the 115-119mph range.
At 124mph vs 125mph, the first GTR was making similar power to weight numbers versus the Z06. So do the math and we'll keep it simple here: Z06 weight? ~3180lbs GTR weight? ~3836. Z06 dyno in RWHP? ~435 on average
We'll do some ratio math: 3180/435 = 3836/x
x = 524
Now let that sink in..............
assuming 20% drivetrain loss (which, the GTR has a pretty efficient drivetrain; that number is a bit conservative)... 524whp / .80 = ~656hp
Yes, I know that drivetrain math isn't that simple. Yes, the GTR in the test was making slightly less power than the Z06, so a direct ratio-check doesn't yield the correct numbers. Yes, I know there are more factors at work here. Yes, I know that the GTR has a better drivetrain which better utilizies its own powerband than the Z06 does. You still can't escape from the numbers pointing in the direction of a big Nissan lie. Even if you give some headroom for all these factors; the 1st GTR is still making around 600hp or more.
QED
Last edited by Bean; 03-12-09 at 11:01 AM.
03-12-09, 11:24 AM
#14
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure! Since you're quoting C&D times, please tell me what dyno they used? A Mustang Dyno... an AWD Mustang dyno. In fact, no AWD dyno is very accurate or comparable to the typical Dynojet dyno that so many people use these days. You can only compare them to other AWD cars. Go ask the Evolution guys about that one. These magazine journalists are hardly "enthusiasts".
And the last paragraph (that you bolded for some reason) shows that the 2 "early production" (ROFLMAO) cars that they had different times with, they never dynoed.
I'm not saying its major modifications here; anyone who knows anything about turbo-cars is that its VERY easy to make substantial power gains with them.
(11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125) on the first test car
speedflex, think here for just a second. Do you think the 4th test car at 120mph traps was making anywhere near the power that the 1st car was? Do you know what kind of a difference that 4mph in trap speed is? Please check the enthusiasts times checkered all over the internet for proof. They generally get into the 115-119mph range.
At 124mph vs 125mph, the first GTR was making similar power to weight numbers versus the Z06. So do the math and we'll keep it simple here: Z06 weight? ~3180lbs GTR weight? ~3836. Z06 dyno in RWHP? ~435 on average
We'll do some ratio math: 3180/435 = 3836/x
x = 524
Now let that sink in..............
assuming 20% drivetrain loss (which, the GTR has a pretty efficient drivetrain; that number is a bit conservative)... 524whp / .80 = ~656hp
Yes, I know that drivetrain math isn't that simple. Yes, the GTR in the test was making slightly less power than the Z06, so a direct ratio-check doesn't yield the correct numbers. Yes, I know there are more factors at work here. Yes, I know that the GTR has a better drivetrain which better utilizies its own powerband than the Z06 does. You still can't escape from the numbers pointing in the direction of a big Nissan lie. Even if you give some headroom for all these factors; the 1st GTR is still making around 600hp or more.
QED
And the last paragraph (that you bolded for some reason) shows that the 2 "early production" (ROFLMAO) cars that they had different times with, they never dynoed.
I'm not saying its major modifications here; anyone who knows anything about turbo-cars is that its VERY easy to make substantial power gains with them.
(11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125) on the first test car
speedflex, think here for just a second. Do you think the 4th test car at 120mph traps was making anywhere near the power that the 1st car was? Do you know what kind of a difference that 4mph in trap speed is? Please check the enthusiasts times checkered all over the internet for proof. They generally get into the 115-119mph range.
At 124mph vs 125mph, the first GTR was making similar power to weight numbers versus the Z06. So do the math and we'll keep it simple here: Z06 weight? ~3180lbs GTR weight? ~3836. Z06 dyno in RWHP? ~435 on average
We'll do some ratio math: 3180/435 = 3836/x
x = 524
Now let that sink in..............
assuming 20% drivetrain loss (which, the GTR has a pretty efficient drivetrain; that number is a bit conservative)... 524whp / .80 = ~656hp
Yes, I know that drivetrain math isn't that simple. Yes, the GTR in the test was making slightly less power than the Z06, so a direct ratio-check doesn't yield the correct numbers. Yes, I know there are more factors at work here. Yes, I know that the GTR has a better drivetrain which better utilizies its own powerband than the Z06 does. You still can't escape from the numbers pointing in the direction of a big Nissan lie. Even if you give some headroom for all these factors; the 1st GTR is still making around 600hp or more.
QED
Not that that's anything in the real world. Nissan has video of it and there will always be skeptics. I hope Nissan goes out of its way to validate the GT-R's ring times next month. I would even hope that they invite Porsche to the run to quell any disputes or controversy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
2
12-28-08 10:56 PM
