It was only a matter of time before the first consumer-owned Nissan GT-R in the U.S. made its way onto a set of dyno rollers. Edmunds Inside Line made the call to Harman Motive, Road Race Engineering (RRE) and Daryl Alison of JSpec Connect to organize a day of data collecting recently for the import from Japan. Harman and RRE happen to each house all-wheel-drive-capable dynos, with a Mustang and Dynapack, respectively. The two units were chosen because they each utilize different means of measuring vehicle power output, making for a range of results that can be more readily used for comparison purposes. And compare they do as a 997 Porsche 911 Turbo and 2008 BMW M3 happened to show up at the testing facilities that very same day, fancy that. Follow the jump to get a handle on the results.
The nature of the Mustang dynomometer's design lends it to typically produce power numbers at the lower end of the spectrum. When strapped down at Harman Motive, the GT-R spun its wheels to 406 hp at 6,400 rpm and 414 ft-lbs of torque at 3,800 rpm. The numbers may seem off from Nissan's rating at first glance, but that is only the result of parasitic losses. Large wheels and all-wheel-drive components create rather significant drag on engine output, thus reducing the available power as it transfers from the engine to the wheels. When overlaid with a pull from a 997 Porsche Turbo, recorded earlier on the same day, one can see that the V6 overtakes the flat-6 from 3,600 to 5,700 rpms. While it is nice to come up with high peak values, the real power lies in the area under the curves.
At RRE, the Dynapack's hub coupling design proved to be a source of disdain for the GT-R's drivetrain. The vehicle squirmed in its constraints as the engine soared through its revolutions. Two worthy pulls were accomplished before cryptic Japanese warnings ended the fun. The result came out to be 452 hp at 6,350 rpm and 448 ft-lbs of torque at 3,865 rpm. Standing alone, the numbers are confusing since they are significantly higher than those recorded by Harman Motive. They are also right on the manufacturer's marks despite including loses through the transmission and differentials. Thankfully, RRE owner Mike Welch chimed in on SoCalEvo.net with a chart overlay to interpret the data. After kicking the GT-R out of the shop, a new E92 V8-powered BMW M3 hooked up to the Dynapack. Despite the Bimmer's impressive flat torque curve, it didn't get anywhere close to catching up with Godzilla, except maybe when it comes to dealer markup.
[Source: Edmunds Inside Line, SoCalEvo.net]
Nick Hogan sentenced to 8 months in jail
Pontiac El Cami-"NO"
Spy Shots: Baby Cayenne caught on 'Ring!
First Peek: 2009 Dodge Ram R/T
Spy Shots: Corvette ZR1 attacking the Nurburgring
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
By the Numbers: April 2008
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Yar @ Mar 13th 2008 9:40AM
"Despite the Bimmer's impressive flat torque curve..."
Wait, the new M3 has torque? That's news to me...
71cuda @ Mar 13th 2008 9:49AM
I think they're impressed with the flatness of the curve, not the actual amount of torque. It appears to stay between 250 and 275 lb/ft for most of the pull, well below the GT-R.
Paul H @ Mar 13th 2008 10:03AM
Perhaps they should have enclosed the whole torque comment for the M3 in "sarcasm" tags.
tuna @ Mar 13th 2008 2:26PM
Flat torque curve is the mark of all BMW M cars. Peak torque is only significant for magazine write-ups and bench racer bragging rights. Flat torque curve translates to versatility and available power through-out the broad RPM range. Note, this doesn't mean that it is better than the next car. It just tells you how the driver must adapt his/her driving style to be fast or faster.
HeyHuub @ Mar 14th 2008 3:56AM
Name me an atmosperic 4.0 V8 that produces more torque then the M3's V8.
Arnold K. @ Mar 13th 2008 10:15AM
As much as I appreciate this blog piece, it is extremely pointless. A DynaPack and Mustang Dyno are two of the worst dynos out there. On top of that, you can't compare dynos from one dyno brand to another. This test would be infinitely more accurate if it were done on the very same dyno machine, that way all variable conditions would also be the same.
Arnold K. @ Mar 13th 2008 10:16AM
Woops, I meant to direct that at Edmunds. Not AutoBlog.
spdracerut @ Mar 13th 2008 11:49AM
Heck, dyno 'numbers' in general are pretty pointless. Have just the dyno plots of a single car has some value, it shows the torque (and therefore horsepower) curves.
These tests are very interesting because they actually compare two cars on the same dyno. The 911 turbo is rated at 480ps and the GTR at roughly the same. Surprise surprise, they acutally point down the same power on the same dyno.
Interesting bits, even though the 911 has a smaller motor, its torque ramps up faster due to the VGT turbos. The GTR is superior from 3.5k to 6k rpms though, right in the meat of the rev range where you'd be spending your time on a road course.
LS2/LS7, two different UK mags have compared the GTR to a 911 turbo and GT3, and both times the GTR has been faster around the road course. Easier to drive and it puts down the power much better allowing for better corner exit speeds.
tuna @ Mar 13th 2008 2:31PM
@why not the LS2/LS7?
"I bet the 911 turbo still takes it on the track. The bizarre rear engine 911 drivetrain layout has some significant advantages on the track"
Too general. Depends on what track. Reports so far suggests the GT-R is quite a bit faster with the GT3 being a closer match.
Chris @ Mar 13th 2008 6:15PM
Can you please explain to me why Dynapack is a "bad dyno"?? From what I know, it is the most repeatable dyno out there because it removes a lot of variables of rolling drum dynos and newer Dynapacks come with software that very accurately accounts for the effect of the loss of the wheel/tire on horsepower.
rgseidl @ Mar 13th 2008 10:22AM
Every engine delivers torque, otherwise it couldn't deliver any power. The question is, how much torque at which speed?
The 4.0L V8 in the M3 is naturally aspirated high rev concept. That means it is designed to deliver moderate but fairly constant torque over a very wide speed range and, enthusiastic throttle response. In the second graphic, the fat lines correspond to the Skyline, the thin ones to the M3. Torque on the left, power on the right.
The Porsche and the GT-R feature slightly lower displacements at 3.5 and 3.6L, respectively. However, both are fitted with large turbos for high boost power at high RPM. This lets them beat the M3 on the dyno, but the sound and feel is of course different. The key result here is that the GT-R' engine really does compare to the 911 Turbo.
MasterBoy @ Mar 13th 2008 10:50AM
wow, I can not say it better!
Frylock350 @ Mar 13th 2008 11:08AM
I though GT-R had a special 3.8L version of the VK V6? Either way it makes a mockery of the M3.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 13th 2008 11:23AM
The GT-R motor is most definitely a 3.8L. And as to matching up to the turbo, yeah, it sure seems it does. It takes 10% more displacement to do it, which isn't all that bad.
I bet the 911 turbo still takes it on the track. The bizarre rear engine 911 drivetrain layout has some significant advantages on the track.
Injected @ Mar 13th 2008 11:37AM
@ls2/ls7,
They already compared the 911, M3 and GTR at the track and the GTR is the fastest of the three.
Also note that this is a JDM GTR, not an USDM GTR.
Sherief @ Mar 13th 2008 1:23PM
Actually, a japanese automotive program pitted a GT-R against a 997 Turbo and the 997 didn't stand a chance.
Mobius_1 @ Mar 13th 2008 10:22AM
Gotta respect the GT-R's engine, real awesome for a MSRP 77000 car (damn dealers) and matches a 997 Turbo, wow!
Franz @ Mar 13th 2008 11:13AM
Wow. Mustang dyno numbers are always low, but the Dynapack seems to be about right. But dyno numbers will vary. Remember the first Japanese dyno test (on a Dynapack) recorded about 475whp, and caused quite a flurry of posts claiming it was actually flywheel hp that was shown.
Here's a dyno test on a Dastek 4WD dyno o the first UK GT-R:
http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php?blog=4&title=gtc-s-standard-r35-gt-r-makes-520hp-on-d&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
As well as a review of said GT-R by a 997 GT3 owner:
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/92347-so-i-drove-gtr-today-thanks-ben.html
MikeW @ Mar 13th 2008 11:36AM
Yeah for double clutch transmission!
The M3 may not have torque, but it still moves.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=124954/pageId=136254
(and doesn't that include an upshift into 4th?)
So with a double clutch, 12.5@115?
BMW's double clutch has 7 forward gears, will Porsche's?
zamafir @ Mar 13th 2008 2:22PM
Um.. yes. Posrche owns VAG. VAG's had DSG in production road cars much longer then BMW, who's only attempting now. VAG's already set to release their seven speed DSG, so yes, Porsche won't have any problems sourcing a 7 speed should they feel the need. Though, seeing as the Turbo is already as quick as the Carrera GT with a traditional slushbox, I'm a little scared at the prospect of a DSG Turbo. EEP.