RR

[QUOTE=SpeedGeek;5197101]I've seen dyno tests from reputable companies that show stock 996 GT3s making 420 bhp.
QUOTE]

Really Speedgeek, even if you can find these so-called dyno tests from reliable companies showing the GT3RS making 420HP no one needs to see the dyno results. The hp/weight ratio tells the story. How can a car making 20hp less per tonne beat another?

I'll wait for your answer.

SpeedGeek

The F430 Scuderia has 378 bhp/ton. It gets around the Fiorano test track in exactly the same time as the Enzo, which has 484 bhp/ton and costs about 3 times as much. That's what technology progress can do.

I have no idea how much power the GT-R actually makes. And I suspect that as a turbo, its power output is rather variable depending on atmospheric conditions and fuel. That's not my point. My point is simply that it seems to me that many Porsche owners get all worked up when a new car comes out that's not supposed to be able to outrun a Porsche on a racetrack, but does. It was exactly the same with the R8 as it is with the GT-R. And before that, it was the Z06.

It's ok with names like Ferrari or Lamborghini, but not with Nissan, Audi or Chevrolet. Straight-line competitors are ok because they can be explained away as "muscle cars". But when corners are involved, any competitors not from Ferrari or Lambo must either be cheating, the test drivers incompetent, or the test conditions unfavorable. The only possibility not considered is that the new car may actually be really, really good.

My posts in this thread are obviously unpopular, but I didn't mean that to be the case. I'm simply pointing out the possibility that the GT-R may in fact be as well engineered as our GT3s. I have no idea if it is, I'm just pointing out the possibility.

I'm on these forums to have fun and to share a common interest, not to do battle. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I don't want to be taken so seriously. I've already apologized for my "infantile insecurity" post above.

On the matter of dyno charts, I really have seen tests showing 996 GT3s at well over 400 bhp. A number of them, actually. There have been many discussions about 996 GT3s making a lot more power than their advertized 380 bhp. Thing is, I've been on Porsche forums since 1999, so I just can't remember what I've seen where. But if I can dig up such a reference, I will post it.

997gt3north

- Don't really know why I'm posting on this thread other than I have a gt3 and I also have a 3700# 2001 Audi S4 that puts down 450whp on 93 octane and very close to 500whp on 100 octane but:
- it is incredibly obvious that the new gt-r is putting down way more than 480chp in stock form
- clearly in stock form, running 102 octane, given enough time for the motor to adapt, there will be an automatic 40whp+ increase on octane alone as timing will go through the roof
- given the weight of the car #3800 and the trap speeds that have been posted (high 120s), the car if those times were done on 93 octane is clearly putting down to the wheels (whp) very close to the stated crank (chp)
- my own experience with my very similar horsepower and weighted Audi S4 (4wdr also) proves this 100% in my own mind

-if i had to guess, I would say that on a Mustang Dyno, the car on 93 octabe would put down in stock form 460whp (with a 18% drive train loss - minimum for a 4wdr tranny) the car in stock form is 542chp (i.e. more than the gt2 and thus how it even gets close to the reported ring time)

- there is no magic here, 480 published hp numbers are so that insurance rates aren't double what they would be if they report the actual 550hp numbers

- with a set of drag slicks and some 100 octane, this car is easily in the 10s and 135mph 1/4 numbers


Finally,

I have done a highway pull of my 997gt3 versus my 450whp 3700# audi S4 and the S4 wins the drag race by a few cars+ when you do a simple rolling 3rd gear pull that goes from something like 50mph to 100mph - not true of a 997tt, my s4 is faster than a stock turbo. Thus, either the gt-r is lighter than 3800#s (not likely) or it has way more whp than the quoted 480 - way more.
Paul

SpeedGeek

If the car can really manage a trap speed of high 120s on 93 octane, I'll concede the point. You can't get to high 120s with 3800 lbs and 480 crank bhp. I've only seen one test, and it was 120 mph.

Regardless, the GT-R is clearly not just a muscle car. Its ability to get around a track so fast while carrying so much weight is amazing, regardless of its power, and says a lot about its chassis engineering.

997gt3north

The one thing that I don't get about all the posted track tests of the gt-r versus the gt3/rs is the braking quotes I hear. Either the drivers are braking the gt3 way too early (very likely as late braking / very good trail braking a gt3 takes lots of practise) or the 3800# gt-r has magical tires that all gt3/rs owners should immediately go out and purchase. There is just no conceivable way that on a track a 600# lighter car shouldn't destroy the heavier car into the brake zone / never mind the mid corner speed. Again, my own experience in my heavy S4 versus my gt3 on tracks such as limerock has proven this 1000% - even cars that weigh 3500-3600, never mind 3800, are easily caught under braking.

Boxster Coupe GTS

*** Car Magazine: Nissan GT-R vs Rivals ***

Car Magazine took the GT-R and three rivals around Rockingham's infield circuit, with Datron's hi-tech GPS timing gear to provide numerical data for every lap, including a peak lap speed. Each car was also timed on runs from 0-60mph and 0-100mph...

Nissan GT-R
0-60mph: 3.6sec
0-100mph: 8.3sec
Lap time: 82.20sec
Peak track speed: 109.7mph
Engine: 3799cc 24v twin-turbo V6
Power: 473bhp @ 6400rpm
Torque: 432lb ft @ 3200-5200rpm
Drive: Six-speed dual-clutch, 4WD
Weight: 1740kg
Power-to-weight: 272bhp/ton(?)

Porsche 997 Turbo
0-60mph: 3.7sec
0-100mph: 8.4sec
Lap time: 83.20sec
Peak track speed: 114.0mph
Engine: 3600cc 24v twin-turbo flat six
Power: 472bhp @ 6000rpm
Torque: 457lb ft @ 1950-5000rpm
Drive: Six-speed manual, 4WD
Weight: 1585kg
Power-to-weight: 298bhp/ton

Audi R8
0-60mph: 4.1sec
0-100mph: 10.2sec
Lap time: 83.83sec
Peak track speed: 107.9mph
Engine: 4163cc 32v V8
Power: 414bhp @ 7800rpm
Torque: 317lb ft @ 4500rpm
Drive: Six-speed manual, 4WD
Weight: 1560kg
Power-to-weight: 265bhp/ton

BMW M3
0-60mph: 4.6sec
0-100mph: 10.4sec
Lap time: 85.58sec
Peak track speed: 106.2mph
Engine: 3999cc 32v V8
Power: 414bhp @ 8300rpm
Torque: 298lb ft @ 3900rpm
Drive: Six-speed manual, 4WD
Weight: 1655kg
Power-to-weight: 250bhp/ton

340Elise

Your posts are not unpopular with me; I enjoy reading them and I think you make excellent points. I thank you for the apology, and I apologize for taking you too serious; I should know better anyway. We all know that these posts can be taken the wrong way because we are only reading them; we don't get tone and body language, etc...; thank god we have the smilies to help us out.

Based on the two dynos that have been posted, and the comments made by 997gt3north, I am more and more convinced that the car is advertising its hp number of 473 hp as wheel hp. I think they used the term net and also mentioned that net is about 15% lower. I think that using the words "at the wheels" is more of a gear head term, and they tried to state it in a more elegant way, if you will. They specifically wrote that Gross is the engine alone, and that Net is when the engine is "assembled ONTO THE VEHICLE." Here is the quote one more time:

*The engine power output values indicated in this catalog are all net power output values.
* Engine power output can be indicated as 'Net power output' or 'Gross power output'.
'Gross' values are estimations of power output of the engine alone.
'Net' values are estimations of when the engine is assembled onto the vehicle.
For estimations of the same gasoline engines, 'Net' values are approximately 15% lower than 'Gross' values according to JAMA research...

Maybe we should look into JAMA research to get an idea of which 15% they are talking about: Engine alone vs. engine with accesories OR engine with accesories vs. at the wheels power.

I also made the comment about the insurance issue and agree with 997gt3north that listing the car with over 500 HP will make the insurance go through the roof. And Nissan may very well be targeting buyers who are on the ragged edge of being able to afford this car; and having insurance rates that are through the roof, then many will not be able to afford the car.

I think they are being honest by explaining what they mean with their 480 hp figure, and helping potential buyers with insurance costs; I see nothing wrong with this. Even if it is not totally clear (this is probably for good reason), they do mention it. I think they came up with their own definition of gross and net to cover their butts if people start killing themselves and others in these cars, but to confuse the insurance companies (just like we are) into thinking they are talking about the old Gross rating vs. the new Net rating, which is how all the car manufacturers do it. But they added that one little detail about their Net meaning the engine is assembled onto the vehicle. It is sneaky and gives them an out when unexperienced drivers think the electronics will always save them no matter what they do. "Why didn't you tell us this car makes 550 HP, how can you so severly under-rate the actual HP of a car; you are at least partially liable for this young man's death!"

An example of a manufacturer being careful about releasing a high HP car to the general public is the new ZR-1 Corvette. I read that Chevy may require buyers to have documented race driving schools that they attended and track time under their belt. Otherwise they will be required to attend a racing school before taking delivery of the car. I know that Ford did this with a high HP Mustang (I believe it was orange and had a big wing) in the 90's. I believe it was street legal, but may not have been. They required the buyers to have an SCCA license I believe.

I think it will be interesting to see how these cars sell and the demographics of the buyers.

I can tell you that our dealership in Albuquerque started out with a letter requiring a non-refundable deposit of $20K, and other stipulations for ordering the car. They probably also had a mark-up over MSRP. In the mean time they dropped that deposit to $1 or $2K and the price is MSRP. They have 5 allocations, with only 2 spoken for as of about 2 weeks ago. I could order the base car (it does not have many options anyway) for just under $70K; although I do not know if that includes destination; probably not.

Either way, I really like the car and I would love to test drive it; which I know will not happen. Whether it has 480 hp or 580 hp, it will be an awesome machine either way and not to be trifled with.

340Elise

You lost me here. You wrote that the S4 beat your 997 GT3, but then said it is also faster than a stock turbo 997tt??? Your 450 whp S4 beat both cars; what is the point? Did you mean to say that the 997gt3 wins the drag race with your S4, but the 997tt does not?

C.J. Ichiban

I think he's saying that the S4 has 450whp, which is a lot.

997gt3north

What I said is what I mean.

Basically, in a straight line (1/4 miles) 997gt3<997tt<mys4<gtr

Lets remove the the gt3 because of its weight for a second

Looking at weight gtr>mys4>997tt

Therefore it must be true that looking at whp gtr>mys4>997tt
(given that all are 4wdr this is basically true because traction is equal)

paul

amaist

I don't think many people said it was impossible that the GT-R is faster. Many people questioned the setup of the tests that were iffy at best. Yes, it is possible that the GR-R is faster but those tests don't prove it. And having a healthy dose of skepticism when seeing a shoddy test or experiment is something everyone can benefit from. I wish people in general would apply that to all areas of life, especially when politicians get involved. Journalists who are given cars to test for free by the manufacturers also deserve a lot of skepticism.

We will see which car is faster, eventually. GT-Rs will start showing up at the racetracks soon enough.

I bet it will be faster than a GT3 at Mosport, especially if driven by a non-pro. The size of the ***** required to extract the ultimate laptime from a GT3 there may cause difficulty in sitting down in the Recaro race seat. And the back straight can really show the power of the GT-R.

But somewhere like Tremblant or Calabogie I can't say either way, yet.

Stinoo

Which makes no sense to me is that the 997TT has a better bhp per tonne then the GT-R and it still does 1/10 of second slower to 60 and to 100. But the GT-R is "auto" and 997TT is manual, so that could be the possibility. The 997TT weighs less then the GT-R, so it should handle much better. The only logical explanation is that they ran the cars on different octane for the test, to accommodate manufacturing biases or they drove the cars in different manners.

Jon70

Or that the GT-R really doesn't have 'only 480hp.' Physics don't lie.

997gt3north

or

the 997TT doesn't have a better bhp per tonne than the gt-r (i.e. the gt-r's bhp is much higher than nissan has stated)

again, i think this is obvious, there is no magic in life, a 997tt with the same bhp and less weight is not going to be slower around the ring than a car with the same "posted" bhp and a lot more weight (i don't care how magical the nissan tranny / diffs are - physics are physics)

the nissan has a little bit more displacement, and is likely running the same or a tiny bit more boost = more horsepower = no magic

look at the gt2, a little bit less weight + a little bit more hp = faster than the tt (the gt2 ring time should give you an idea what the nissan's true bhp is, i.e. much more than 480chp)

C.J. Ichiban

+100. well typed