For car buffs it's baffling (and pretty cool, too) to see a $70,000 Nissan weighing nearly 4,000 lbs whoop up on lighter, more powerful cars. The GT-R lapped more than five seconds quicker than a Corvette Z06 and 911 Turbo at Buttonwillow Raceway during Road and Track's test, and Car and Driver pulled off some pretty incredible numbers during theirs, running 0-60 mph in 3.3 seconds and the quarter mile in just 11.5 seconds. However, some have questioned the numbers. How does the GT-R, which has a weight-to-horsepower ratio 25% higher than the Turbo and Z06, beat both around the racetrack?
Motor Trend questioned the numbers too, and decided to check for themselves when they received a GT-R to review. They took the GT-R over to K&N Engineering in San Bernardino, CA, who strapped it to their in-house chassis dyno to see just how much horsepower the car was making. Three separate runs in fourth gear netted an average of about 430 horsepower at the wheels. Assuming a conservative 15% drivetrain loss, the GT-R is actually producing more than 500 horsepower and 500 lb-ft torque at the flywheel. That helps explain the numbers, but it won't give 911 Turbo and Corvette Z06 owners any comfort. Thanks for the tip, Jake!
[Source: Motor Trend]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
DomManganelli @ Mar 29th 2008 9:52AM
had no idea it weighed 4000 lbs? leaves the door open for nissan to make a supperleggera just in time for the introduction of the next 911turbo
zreeb @ Mar 29th 2008 11:44AM
V-Spec will be lighter with more HP.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 29th 2008 12:10PM
The V-spec model hasn't had more HP than the street model in the past, has it?
Franz @ Mar 29th 2008 1:11PM
The V-Spec never had more power on paper, but the R34 never had more power than the R32 on paper either. They were always conservatively rated at 280-ish hp. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably did. Maybe resident Skyline expert Sean Morris can shed some light on the subject. Where are you Sean?
jgp @ Mar 29th 2008 6:34PM
They were all officially rated at 280hp for legal reasons, regardless of how much power they actually made.
Franz @ Mar 29th 2008 7:20PM
Not legal reasons. It was basically a gentleman's agreement.
DomManganelli @ Mar 29th 2008 11:13PM
if i'm not mistaken the gentlemen's agreement was to avoid any kind of legal restrictions and lawsuits that would come with high output engines. avoiding a horsepower war, now that is true business ethics.
3seriesisking @ Mar 29th 2008 9:55AM
Wowee Wow Wow!
mcheddadi @ Mar 29th 2008 10:00AM
Strip it down and become UNSTOPPABLE!
Mike @ Mar 29th 2008 10:01AM
Eh I'd bet it needs alot of that weight to keep the performance. You might be able to take off a few hundred pounds, but nothing more than that.
Stephan Wilkinson @ Mar 29th 2008 10:00AM
Typically the power-loss numbers for a front-engine/rear-drive car are more on the order of 25 percent, especially if it's awd even with a 100-percent rear torque split. 15 percent would be correct for a car with engine, transmission and drive wheels co-located, like a 911. But dyno numbers fluctuate anyway, from day to day, operator to operator, phase of the moon to phase of the moon...
Stephan Wilkinson
Brian @ Mar 29th 2008 10:09AM
I agree that 15% drivetrain loss sounds low for an AWD car. I've heard that some AWD systems sap closer to 30% of the power available at the flywheel.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 29th 2008 12:01PM
I heartily disagree with your 25% figure on drivetrain loss on a dyno. Especially for a front engine, rear drive car. Dyno runs are done in top gear and with a rather heavy load to keep the rate of acceleration down and thus lower the inertial losses as much as possible.
That figure is more likely for an AWD car, although I doubt this one was functioning as an AWD car when on the dyno.
Stephan Wilkinson @ Mar 29th 2008 12:18PM
The losses aren't all inertial. Lot of frictional losses as well.
Franz @ Mar 29th 2008 3:53PM
@ why not the LS2/LS7?:
It was functioning as an AWD car on the dyno. On an AWD Dynojet, the rollers aren't mechanically linked and unless I'm seeing things, the front wheels were turning.
HotRodzNKustoms @ Mar 29th 2008 10:08AM
That still doesn't explain it. The power to weight ration is still way off being able to do what it does
Brian @ Mar 29th 2008 10:11AM
I have a feeling that many high-power road cars like the Z06 are not limited by their power-to-weight ratio, they are limited by grip. If the GT-R is losing less power to wheel spin or it is delivering power more smoothly, it would explain better lap times despite its weight.
vwboyaf1 @ Mar 29th 2008 10:42AM
That's what I immediately thought as well. The AWD system has a lot to do with the incredible performance. A base WRX has pretty impressive acceleration and cornering ability, even though it weighs about 3400 pounds.
James Sonne @ Mar 29th 2008 11:50AM
The 911 is awd also, people. And 30 hp at the crank still doesn't explain 3.3 s against 3.7 s to sixty.
The gearing on the GTR is supposedly very tight through thirdgear, probably a factor. No one complains because there's no clutch.
jcar302 @ Mar 29th 2008 11:01AM
I saw this car yesterday at the NY auto show. I hate to say it, but it's a good looking car, pictures don't do it justice. (and i am one of the haters)
Also MT ran the car in the 1/4 mile, 11.5@124 is very fast, although conditions were more than favorable to an awd turbo car, 52 degrees out. I think that number will change drastically when people run it at 85+degrees.
Cool air and traction that is not affected by the same cold air that makes it fast, is quite the recipe.
This car seems to be the real deal, and may not be overhyped.