+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: new skyline (/showthread.php?tid=5441)
- Evan - 12-19-2007
Andy Wrote:GTR=485hp, 3836 lbs.
1/4 mile = 11.6 at 120
0-60 in 3.3 secs
C6 z06 = 505hp, 3130lbs
1/4 = 11.3
0-60 = 3.7 secs
How can a car with less HP's and weighs more gets comparable times? Nissan couldn't possible under rate their motor by that much, right? Maybe the ATTESSA AWD can slow down time with pokemon power.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/19/inside-line-tests-nissan-gt-r-oh-yes-its-very-fast/
awd launch, thats it.
the z06 makes it up in the 1/4, im willing to bet the trap speed is significantly higher for the z06 as well.
- Mike - 12-19-2007
HAULN-SS Wrote:I'd be more concerned about the weight than down 20hp which is almost negligible. To have gearing in there to make up for 700 lbs, i'm guessing the cars topend must be quite a bit lower than the vettes.
or they just plopped a really long 6th in there.
- G.Irish - 12-19-2007
Evan Wrote:Yeah look at the numbers. The GTR gets to 60 4 tenths of a second faster but the the Z06 not only catches it but passes it and puts it down by a gap of .3 seconds by the quarter mile mark. So basically from 60 to 125 ish the Vette takes a full 7 tenths or so out of the GTR.Andy Wrote:GTR=485hp, 3836 lbs.
1/4 mile = 11.6 at 120
0-60 in 3.3 secs
C6 z06 = 505hp, 3130lbs
1/4 = 11.3
0-60 = 3.7 secs
How can a car with less HP's and weighs more gets comparable times? Nissan couldn't possible under rate their motor by that much, right? Maybe the ATTESSA AWD can slow down time with pokemon power.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/19/inside-line-tests-nissan-gt-r-oh-yes-its-very-fast/
awd launch, thats it.
the z06 makes it up in the 1/4, im willing to bet the trap speed is significantly higher for the z06 as well.
Not surprising since AWD is a significant advantage from the launch when you're talking about 500 hp. That said, the GTR probably is underrated, but I'm not sure why Nissan wouldn't just rate it at an even 500 hp.
- HAULN-SS - 12-19-2007
Mike Wrote:HAULN-SS Wrote:I'd be more concerned about the weight than down 20hp which is almost negligible. To have gearing in there to make up for 700 lbs, i'm guessing the cars topend must be quite a bit lower than the vettes.
or they just plopped a really long 6th in there.
that's not very elegant, for how much one of those is going to cost
- .RJ - 12-19-2007
HAULN-SS Wrote:that's not very elegant, for how much one of those is going to cost
Thats how the 'vette handles the same problem.
What would you rather see instead? Some sort of expensive, failure prone electronically controled technowankery?
- Mike - 12-19-2007
HAULN-SS Wrote:Mike Wrote:HAULN-SS Wrote:I'd be more concerned about the weight than down 20hp which is almost negligible. To have gearing in there to make up for 700 lbs, i'm guessing the cars topend must be quite a bit lower than the vettes.
or they just plopped a really long 6th in there.
that's not very elegant, for how much one of those is going to cost
why not? historically, that has been the point of a 6th gear in a sports car.
- HAULN-SS - 12-19-2007
.RJ Wrote:HAULN-SS Wrote:that's not very elegant, for how much one of those is going to cost
Thats how the 'vette handles the same problem.
What would you rather see instead? Some sort of expensive, failure prone electronically controled technowankery?
7th gear obviously
I dunno, I think I was thinking of something else - a huge drop from the top of 5th get to the bottom of 6th gear or something. Pull Pull Pull drop Pulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
- .RJ - 12-19-2007
The point is to never use 6th unless you're on the highway.
- HAULN-SS - 12-19-2007
.RJ Wrote:The point is to never use 6th unless you're on the highway.
Well yeah, and I know that no one is ever going to top it out except magazines anyway.
- .RJ - 12-19-2007
You'll probably hit to speed in 5th, rather than 6th anyways.
- CaptainHenreh - 12-19-2007
With the "DSG", I'm a little surprised they went with six gears.
- WRXtranceformed - 12-20-2007
Apparently you guys missed this memo. Early dyno tests are showing that the new GT-R is EXTREMELY underrated.
![[Image: dynogtrp1xq2.jpg]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3378/dynogtrp1xq2.jpg)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nagtroc.com/forums/R35-Dyno-t20782.html">http://www.nagtroc.com/forums/R35-Dyno-t20782.html</a><!-- m -->
This is a good thing for those who are going to buy it, but in a way it kind of discredits what Nissan says the car is doing with what it has. It never really added up to me how a car with more weight and supposed less power was faster around the 'Ring than the Z06. This explains it perfectly, it's putting down as much at all four wheels than it claims at the crank :lol:.
The new Z06 runs faster than 11s btw, but I think that was talked about in another thread here.
- .RJ - 12-20-2007
I'll buy it when its on a dyno here, in the US, with US emissions equipment and fuel. Lots of speculation up to this point - including the bogus 'ring time.
- Goodspeed - 12-20-2007
Why does it say "Fly Wheel Power Graph" up there? I've seen chassis dyno printouts that mistakenly say that before so perhaps it should just be disregarded. Anyways, thats mighty impressive. I don't think manufacturer-claimed power figures stand for much of anything these days anyways....
- WRXtranceformed - 12-20-2007
It always says flywheel power on dynapacks, but it's actually power at the hubs.
- G.Irish - 12-20-2007
.RJ Wrote:I'll buy it when its on a dyno here, in the US, with US emissions equipment and fuel. Lots of speculation up to this point - including the bogus 'ring time.I think the 'Ring time was real, but I think that the posted time for the Z06 was not the best time it could post. GM rented the track for an hour one morning to set their time and Jan Magnussen said the car was a bit scary because it was catching air in some places.
On the other hand Nissan apparently had the car at the 'Ring for weeks to set their time because they probably wanted to use it as a marketing tool (rightly so).
When C&D did the Lightning Lap at VIR last year the Z06 was about 3 seconds a lap faster than the 997 GT3. On the Nordschleife lap time list the 997 GT3 pulled a 7:39 while the GTR is listed at 7:38.54. So even if the gap around the 'Ring stayed the same, the Z06 should at least be able to do a 7:36. Since the 'Ring is about twice as long as VIR I'd imagine a 7:33 or so would be on the cards.
But at any rate, I don't think Nissan was BS'ing, but I don't think the GTR is going to have anything for the Z06 when they get matched up head to head.
- .RJ - 12-20-2007
G.Irish Wrote:On the other hand Nissan apparently had the car at the 'Ring for weeks to set their time because they probably wanted to use it as a marketing tool (rightly so).
Was the car on standard production tires and engine tune? Noooobody knows...
I just dont buy it with its weight of 3800 lbs - unless there is some serious power underestimation (and there appears to be some... but not that much). There are more capable production cars that dont go that fast in standard road trim.
- .RJ - 12-20-2007
I just looked at the ring video again - top speed of under 170mph down the long straight. If the time is accurate, they put together a ringer to run that laps, no question.
A quick google search pulls up this list - Thats some very exclusive company.... I'm not buying it. 8 seconds faster than a GT2 - a car that weighs 3175 lbs, and makes 500+ hp/ft-lbs?
Quote:7:32 - Porsche Carrera GT (7:32.44)
7:44 - Zonda
7:46 - Porsche 996 GT2
7:47 - Porsche Gt3 RS (sport tyres)
7:50 - M3 CSL (sport tyres)
7:52 - GT3 (381hp)
7:52 - Lamborghini Gallardo
7:52 - Lamborghini Murcielao
7:52 - Mercedes SLR mclaren
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo
7:56 - 360 stradale (sport tyres)
7:57 - Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo (600 HP, racing suspension)
8:07 - Ferrari 550
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:09 - Ferrari 360 Modena
8:10 - Chrysler Viper GTS
8:12 - Porsche 993 Turbo (430 HP version)
8:15 - BMW Z8 400 HP
8:17 - Porsche 996 C2
8:18 - Ferrari F355
8:22 - BMW M Coupe 321 HP
8:25 - Audi RS4 375 HP
8:28 - Porsche 993 C2
8:28 - BMW M5 400 HP
8:32 - Porsche Boxster S
8:35 - BMW M3 Coupe 321 HP
8:37 - Mercedes C32 AMG
8:38 - Honda NSX
8:39 - Honda S2000
8:40 - Chevrolet Corvette
8:42 - Audi S4 265 HP
8:42 - Lotus Exige
8:49 - Jaguar XKR Coupe
8:52 - Mercedes CLK 430
- Ginger - 12-20-2007
I'm kinda with RJ... when the company rolls the track for weeks with a car that isn't even released spec'd yet, they've got to be pully some funny tricks to get their numbers. Sure, the number is still impressive, but all the other cars get more impressive, too, if you did something like pulled off emissions kits, put on sticky rubber, and massaged a piece here and there.
- WRXtranceformed - 12-20-2007
I still can't get over that this car is putting down at the wheels what Nissan claims it's putting down at the crank. I know dyno numbers are just arbitrary numbers in a lot of cases, and that Dynapacks usually read high, but irregardless that is some serious sandbagging no matter how you look at it.
With AWD drivetrain loss, those whp numbers should be like 100hp less than what that graph is showing.