gtr vs z06

[C-Kwik]

I wonder what happened in the Motor Trend test when they ran a 149mph 1/4 mile speed.

Probably a typo. It would be real tough to get any significantly higher trap speed than the 120 edmunds is boasting. Let alone acheive such a high trap speed without a significantly lower E.T. In order to do that, the car would probably need to accelerate at the rate it does in first gear. Which, is practically impossible.

[gwoods]

2 turbo charges help keep the acceleration linear.

I raced an Acura RSX with a huge turbo that ran a 14.79 at 111 mph..... cars with power adders can pick up a lot more mph at the end of the track then NA cars.

I've been drag racing for about 4 years and have seen a lot of strange times.

What would be cool is it the GT-R had an overboost feature that let you run 10 extra PSI for up to 30 seconds at a time!!! Maybe it does?

I would put water/meth injection on mine and set of Nitto 555r's and call it a day!

Jeff

[C-Kwik]

2 turbo charges help keep the acceleration linear.

Not over several different gears. The torque multiplication difference between many car's 1st gears and their overdrive gears can be as easily as much as 13 times higher in first gear.

I raced an Acura RSX with a huge turbo that ran a 14.79 at 111 mph..... cars with power adders can pick up a lot more mph at the end of the track then NA cars.

I can almost assure you that it had to do with wheel spin. Trap speeds are almost always consistent within a few mph regardless of wheelspin. ET's suffer easily if you spin your tires for the first 60 feet. This is something that should not be of any significant problem for the GT-R since it is AWD.

I've been drag racing for about 4 years and have seen a lot of strange times.

Yes, but they can all be explained. I have seen my fair share of drag races, and still have slips from some 10 years ago.

What would be cool is it the GT-R had an overboost feature that let you run 10 extra PSI for up to 30 seconds at a time!!! Maybe it does?

Doubtful, but it would be a cool feature. But it would still net an ET that is more consistent with a 149 mph trap speed.

[gwoods]

I don't know man I'm at the track racing and watching at least every month. I see cars with power adders running high MPH for their ET's every time.

Traction on launch is a huge part of the game and currently keeping me at 14.0* times when current bodied Mustang GT's are running 14.1*'s. Last weekend the first race I ran against an empty lane and gave the car full throttle on start. I ran a 14.7 at 99 mph... due to traction.

All my Hemi Ram buddies run a kit or two of nitrous... if you wait until the back end of the 1/8 to use it you can end up with a slower run and a higher speed. Maybe the GT-r restricts boost in 1st and 2nd to save the drive-train and gives you a little more boost in 4th + 5th since your already going?

I really want to beleive that 149 mph trap speed is real

I think the only way to settle this is for Nissan to give me a GT-R to race! I promise I will be at the track EVERY weekend

[C-Kwik]

NOS might be a bit different depending on how they use it. Some drivers will wait till as late as third gear to squeeze as traction is too limited in first and second. Particularly in FWD cars. I recall a friend of mine had a 100-shot in a 93 Accord. He tried launching with NOS and had a 18 second ET with a 100 MPH trap. My other friend who installed it for him had the same set-up on the same kind of car and ran a high 13 with similar traps. We voted the first guy the worst driver.

In any case, while squeezing off NOS late might induce some effect of high trap relative to the ET, it would take quite a bit of additional power from the NOS to gain a serious amount of speed. The longer one waits to squeeze, the shorter the distance you have to accelerate under NOS becomes.

I think everyone would love to see a 149 mph trap from a $70K car. But hell, there is not one production car that can do that, so I'd get used to the idea that it won't. I'd be quite happy with a 120 mph trap though. Especially considering it starts to threaten cars at least 6 times it's price that have both more power and less weight (Carrera GT and Enzo come to mind real quick). Though, if cost were not a factor, I'd still choose a Carrera GT.

[gwoods]

Yeah Porsche is the ultimate car for me too. Being able to purchase on is just the begaining. The maintance cost is unreal. I almost bought a 2002 base 911 with the turbo wheels and a body kit instead of my G35. Lack of backseat and the G35 is faster made me buy the G35 instead.

Its hard to believe that Motor Trend would publish a typo?? They said in their article they were able to get a fast 0-60 then the Nissan published 3.5 seconds and now if just came out that the car does 3.3 seconds to 60 using launch control.

I think Nissan will keep releasing more about the car until it comes out in Summer 08! I just hope there is one in the dealership for me to test drive!!! Seems like they are going to sell out the first couple years

[Jager]

im not sure about the SAE claims, AFAIK/have heard, if the manufacturer wants to certify a certain horsepower they have the SAE come in and supervise the tests. but nissan and other companies (chevy ford subaru mitsubishi) have all certified cars as having x horsepower when the vehicle had quite a bit more horsepower,

the SAe standards dont say that a manufactuerer cannot quote less horsepower then the engine makes, they jsut say this is the max the car makes. most companies are known for lowballing the HP numbers on "super" cars or higher end production sports cars like the vette and the caddy sts the nissan gtr etc to have lower hp, so that the insurance on the vehicle is not overly cost prohibitive.

SAE just doesnt want you getting ripped off, there is noone getting hurt when the companies say oh its a bit slower then it actually is

[gwoods]

Only 480 hp and 3858 lbs... the car should not be as fast as it is. Consider the SRT-8 Charger is 425 hp and 4200lbs and much slower.

The HP has to be under rated!

Jeff

[Jager]

well i have no link to the video and article on it, but i do remember reading about the first engine shots of the GT-R and the line that struck me was nissan said it made 480hp conservatively.

that meant to me, "we didnt really tune this to max potential and we arent really telling you how much Hp its making, but its alot more then 480"

I cannot assume a set number but a v6 with that displacement and turbos that large makes me immediately assume 500+ hp off the line.

does anyone know what psi the turbo wastegates are set to? those things look to be at least capable of 20+psi.

[C-Kwik]

Based on the weight you provided and the times edmunds obtained, a horsepower calculator estimates it is 516 flywheel hp. While it would be estimated high, it the published numbers may be close to the actual. Considering this is a AWD car with an apparent ability to launch quite hard, it could easily be cutting down it's time quite a bit. The torque curve might be fairly flat and broad too which could result in a little better acceleration than the peak HP might suggest. BTW, 516 HP would only have a 7.5% error factor. Which can easily be skewed by factors I mentioned above.

Just an FYI, the same calculator indicates a 149 mph trap would have some 763 HP.

http://www.dragtimes.com/horse...r.php

[gwoods]

[QUOTE=C-Kwik]Just an FYI, the same calculator indicates a 149 mph trap would have some 763 HP. [QUOTE]



I still want to believe!

You know originally Nissan said the GT-R makes 450 hp. Now it makes 480 hp?? This thing has to be under rated!

By the way MODS I love the Christmas smilies

[G_whizz]

[gwoods]

Heres another twin turbo car running a 11.7 second 1/4 mile at 146.7 mph. Like I said power adders make strange 1/4 mile times.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/as...f.pdf

Nissan is still claiming 0-60 in 3.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in 11.7 there is no mph on the press release. Motor Trend published a 1/4 mile time of 11.7 at 149 mph. The speed has been removed from the article online.

http://www.motortrend.com/road....html

Now given the road test of the Viper with a 11.7 1/4 at 146 don't you think its possible the at the GT-r could have done 11.7 at 149????

The ZR-1 looks like a better match up to the GT-r. It ran the same to 60 but did the 1/4 mile in 11.0 couldn't find a speed.

[joe603]

I totally agree with you on the ZR-1 v. GT-R. That vette will be sick for sure! Speaking of vettes...you'll have to excuse certain vette owners, they don't like another car trampling on their "value/performance" ace in the hole...and with a backseat! (gasp, what a concept)

Nobody can deny that the new GT-R has people excited! I can't wait to see the "official" numbers and comparison tests to come

[gwoods]

I don't think the GTR will be able to keep up with the ZR1 in a straight line but put some real world curves in the track and the Vette will have its hands full keeping up with the GTR.

The Vette suffers from what most (all?) American sports cars suffer from... rear wheel drive. Why can't we have a 620 hp all wheel drive Vette????

When I win the lottery I'll have both in my garage... until I loose my license

[joe603]

The Vette suffers from what most (all?) American sports cars suffer from... rear wheel drive. Why can't we have a 620 hp all wheel drive Vette????

Because vette owners would have a hissy fit! They freaked when the air brakes were changed with the C6. They fear change...

[C-Kwik]

Now given the road test of the Viper with a 11.7 1/4 at 146 don't you think its possible the at the GT-r could have done 11.7 at 149????

The ZR-1 looks like a better match up to the GT-r. It ran the same to 60 but did the 1/4 mile in 11.0 couldn't find a speed.

Look at what car it was. It's a Hennessey Viper. That thing has some 2 times the HP the GT-R has and only 2 drivewheels. I recall reading either that comparison or one similar to it. It had serious traction problems. The 0-60 times tell all. Notice the Veyron. It has a lot of power (1001 HP) but a lot more weight(4400 lbs) than most of the other cars in the test. Yet it's 0-60 is incredible. It's the only one in the test that has AWD.

Here is an exerpt from the article the numbers you posted was derived from:

"Steve describes it best: "Holy Hell! This is a wild ride. It just wants to go sideways in every gear. When you're taking off, you've got to be so careful with the throttle. In 2nd, you've still got to be careful. It'll take a bit more throttle in 3rd. When you put it in 4th, you can go flat, but I had it snap loose with wheelspin. It's not until the middle of 4th gear that the Viper is really hooking up, producing lots of horsepower and torque.""

http://www.roadandtrack.com/ar...=5675

I'm not sure of the gear ratios on the Viper, but I'd speculate it may be completing the quarter mile within 4th gear. And according to this article the Viper had traction issues up until the middle of fourth. You might think the speed-dependent boost system might have some effect on this, but with traction being a problem even at high speeds, I can't imagine any effect the speed dependent boost would have would make that much of a difference. At least not to the tune of almost 30 extra mph. By Comparison, the Lingenfelter Corvette in that test was rated at 880 hp and 300 lbs lighter than the Viper. Although it didn't get a chance to run on drag radials, the 0-60 was higher than the Viper despite the Viper only having about 800 HP between 0 and 60 mph.

Another tidbit of info I'll throw in is that a stock Viper SRT-10 runs a 3.7 second 0-60 and completes the quarter mile in 11.9 seconds at 124.4 mph. That's .6 seconds faster to 60 and only .2 seconds slower to the quarter mile than the Hennessey version. But the huge difference can be seen in the trap speeds. Meaning the Hennesey Viper is getting out of the hole slower, but accelerates at a much faster pace once it can get some level of traction going.

Note the power to weight ratios of the cars from that article. Then, compare them to their respective quarter mile trap speeds. There is much more relavance than their quarter mile times. There are of cousre some anomolies, in teh Veyron and the SLR, but they are not to the tune of a 30 mph difference in their trap speeds. In actuality, the GT-R is a bit of an anomaly as it's power to weight ratio is just over 8 lbs per HP, yet it pulls off a trap speed similar to that of the Murciélago.

Hennesey Viper - 3.1 lbs per HP; 146.7 mph; 11.7Lingenfelter Corvette - 3.7; 136.4; 12.3Bugatti Veyron - 4.5; 137.9; 10.6Ruf Rt 12 - 5.1; 127.2; 11.6Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren - 6.3; 128.1; 11.6Lamborghini Murciélago - 6.9; 119.4; 12.3

[gwoods]

So you agree with me? The GTR's horse power must be severly under rated!

[C-Kwik]

Not severely. Somewhat maybe. Then again, it could just have an amazingly flat torque curve and the gear ratios optimized to maximize the highest horsepower ares of the powerband.

I think they need to find a cure for your GT-Ritis. And quickly.

[gwoods]

I think the only cure is not in the showrooms yet.

Maybe Nissan should just hire me to be an internet spokesman so I can afford the GTR.

You think your tired of hearing about it talk to my wife!

[C-Kwik]

I'm no stranger to it myself. My GF stuffed my christmas stocking with any magazines she could find with anything related to the GT-R. Most of my friends get bored with the details I point out about the GT-R. The only difference is I'm just a bit more grounded than you appear to be. Not that floating in the clouds is always a bad thing.

BTW, You know anyone looking for a spare kidney? I'll trade for a new GT-R.

[zozoka1212]

To my basic knowledge it is simple. If you have that much hp/torque you need traction. With 4 wheel drive you can have more traction then with 2 wheel. You are losing hp on the awd system well it is well worth it. It's not like you can use all the hp with the rwd. Of course we are talking about 4 sec 0-60 or around it.

zozo

[gwoods]

Not severely. Somewhat maybe. Then again, it could just have an amazingly flat torque curve and the gear ratios optimized to maximize the highest horsepower ares of the powerband.

I think they need to find a cure for your GT-Ritis. And quickly.

Okay Car and Driver came today. They finally got to run a GTR with test equipment. 3.3 seconds to 60 mph, 11.5 seconds and 124 mph in the 1/4 mile AND 145 feet 70-0 mph braking. That 145 feet is the typo that made the 149 mph 1/4 mile speed.

Also Car and Driver printed that "Japan say production GT-Rs are cremating dynos with 480 horsepower AT THE WHEELS"