MotorTrend says Nissan not lying about GT-R horsepower
Last summer, Motor Trend estimated that the Nissan GT-R made at least 507-horsepower at the crank, which is quite a bit more than the manufacturer's official 480-horse rating. Now, MT decided to put to rest the firestorm it created by strapping yet another GT-R to a new type of dynamometer that's reportedly capable of calculating exact drivetrain losses, something that had previously been nothing more than an estimation. Three runs were conducted, and Godzilla delivered figures that were consistently within just a few percentage points of each other. So, what's the scoop?
According to MT, the average of those three separate dyno runs reveals that Nissan's supercar is delivering 485-horsepower @ 6050 rpm and 470 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm. That's nearly spot on for horsepower, but a good deal more torque at the crank than its official 430 lb-ft. -- we're not complaining. These tests also prove that there are indeed significant losses due to the GT-R's twin-clutch, all-wheel drive configuration, though that's also what helps launch the supercar from a dead-stop so quickly. Thanks for the tip, Franz!
Gallery: 2008 Nissan GT-R Details
[Source: Motor Trend]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? 7:16PM (12/30/2008)
This does not surprise me.
I went through this with my 2000 A6 2.7T (same as the S4). It accelerated so quickly people said it must be underrated on HP (stated 250). But once people started getting good dyno measures on it, they found that it was right on for HP. It was underrated for torque a bit, but only because Audi claimed 258 ft-lbs from 1850-4000RPM, which was true, but it peaked at about 280ft-lbs in the middle of that range.
People go through the same thing with the BMW 335i/535i. They swear it must be underrated due to the performance. But it doesn't appear to be either when people get accurate dynos on it.
It's just that the breadth of the torque curve on a low pressure turbo car means the engine is outputting more power than you would normally see, even though the peak of the output isn't higher than stated.
On a separate note, you can't make a car with three driveshafts, 4 halfshafts and three diffs and not chew up more power than a conventional one driveshaft, 2 halfshaft and single diff layout. So yeah, it'll lose more power in the drivetrain than an RWD car. But when you are powering out of a corner, you aren't as concerned about the power you lose, as you are about the power you can get down. And the AWD system lets it get a lot of power down through corners.
It sucks the massive amounts of drivetrain (including 50% upsized motor from an RB26) makes the car a porker, but it sure does go like hell.
Reply
Sheriefnos. 12:15AM (12/31/2008)
I don't know where you get your info, but every single dyno sheet of a 335i I've seen shows it being signficantly underrated from the factory. Even on "accurate" dynos.
The 2.7T was definitely making the power rating as advertised, and you can tell just from watching them accelerate. It rockets to 60 in the mid 5's, but then acceleration tapers out to mid-90 mph trap speeds.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:22AM (12/31/2008)
What are you talking about? The 2.7T was a rocket to 90. Mine is even in a larger A6 and even 9 years old.
Hell, the car does 0-137 (where the limiter kicks in, at least on an A6 2.7T) in 30 seconds.
BigMcLargeHuge 9:36AM (12/31/2008)
LS7,
Good point about performance being a function of the powerband, not necessarily peak HP. Its how much power you are extracting during the longest period of your acceleration run that matters, even if it tapers off at the top. Common with the small-double-turbo setups on the 2.7T and this engine.
I drove an AllRoad with the 2.7T and that was one quick barge! Love the torque curve.
BigMcLargeHuge 9:42AM (12/31/2008)
Correction, not longest period of power during acceleration run, I mean widest powerband in each gear, even if it tapers off at the top of the RPM band. Then you shift and have maximum available torque still. Making a strong accel run.
MikeW 1:28PM (12/31/2008)
You know those Germans, they like to micromanage things.
http://www.insols.com/20070507_003512_2007_ENGINE_INT.pdf
There is multiple outputs to the N54. The new BMW 740i has the higher output version of the N54. (and so do some of the other N54 applications in the States)
Maybe, hopefully, BMW will accurately rate the N54, the 328 & 528 can be re-upgraded to 330 & 530 (260hp instead of 230hp, and more importantly the variable resonance system)
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?s=97a024faac5b0f5c051c124d8a776be2&attachmentid=158407&d=1219948527
inteller 7:17PM (12/30/2008)
"that's also what helps launch the supercar from a dead-stop so quickly"
...and grenade trannys.
Reply
Mobius_1 7:49PM (12/30/2008)
i.e. from dead-stop to dead.
Matt 11:50PM (12/30/2008)
you said "tranny" lol
Joce03 7:17PM (12/30/2008)
Great pics. Thanks Autoblog.
Reply
SteveJ 7:18PM (12/30/2008)
Motor Trend also said the Tundra TRD did 0-60 in 4.4 seconds, which was found to be incorrect.
Reply
Franz 7:26PM (12/30/2008)
Motor Trend's own Angus McKenzie commented on the Tundra story here on Autoblog, and explained their testing procedures... short story, the traction control was on the lowest setting and they manual shifted the tranny. They got a worst run of 5.6 seconds & a best of 4.6 seconds, which worked out to 4.4 seconds after corrections & rollout. Seems credible enough to me. Go read his comments before you continue making accusations.
svt boost 7:58PM (12/30/2008)
so...does anyone know in socal where you can find this dyno? I would love to put my beast on it and see what it "actually" makes.
Reply
Matt 8:26PM (12/30/2008)
The MaHa dyno does this and has done this for a while. There's one at GoodSpeed Performance in Tempe, AZ... http://www.goodspeedperformance.com/dyno.php
arturo 8:28PM (12/30/2008)
I believe Nissan all the time, even though this GTR is not my taste. I always think of the zo6 when the gtr comes around. The GTR has a launch that is pretty damn quick because of its awd setup, and the way it shifts gears that fast, and the gears so close together, this car was clearly made for the quarter mile. z06 with slicks would do the same trick since you can launch the car harder, and there is more traction. I guess what i am trying to say here is that the GTR power is true, and what it helps this car in acceleration from a dead stop is the technology that this car has. i am sure that this GTR looses to a z06 every time if the race is a roll on. GTR has great technology, and its a great car, but to me its pretty ugly and heavy. still a nice car. I have no bias towards either car since i love anything that goes fast.
Reply
thb_da_one 8:45PM (12/30/2008)
Of course they're not lying. People are so stupid sometimes. I don't think Carlos Ghosn would allow that anyway.
Reply
johncuyle 9:19PM (12/30/2008)
Thought: They got a WHP dyno reading before and guessed at the drivetrain losses. With their ballpark guess, they estimated the power was much greater than Nissan's claims. That means, they way _overestimated_ the drivetrain losses.
The news SHOULD be that the Nissan's drivetrain losses are significantly LOWER than expected and they should be talking about how surprisingly efficient the gearbox and AWD system are.
I wonder what the raw numbers at the wheels off the two dynos were. If they are saying that the losses were particularly high, and that the car makes the expected horsepower, one would expect that the WHP rating coming off the new dyno would be significantly lower than the one they used previously. If that's the case, one would be inclined to include that there is either some sort of calibration problem (probably with the original dyno) or that the car they tested this time is, in fact, not producing as much horsepower as the first one they tested.
Did they do full performance testing on this car, 0-60, drag runs, braking, track times? Other publications have noted that test cars which they got after the first batch seem to be a bit slower. The original times people were getting seemed impossibly fast for a car that heavy. I'm wondering if the original cars were ringers.
Disclaimer: Not knocking the car. There's no possible reasoning by which a car that turns in anywhere near the performance the GTR does for $70k can be considered anything but freaking awesome.
Reply
Nateb123 10:08PM (12/30/2008)
This is along the lines I was thinking. However, the estimates for drivetrain loss in the original MT article were conservative, like in-line-with-a-RWD-powertrain conservative.
I'm still skeptical. Not because Nissan's a bunch of lying tools, or because I think the GT-R sucks, but it just doesn't seem to add up. If you look at the article, the calculated drivetrain loss would have to be just over 10%. Props to Nissan if they did it and the figures are just so amazing they're hard to grasp, but where are all the patents to support such ungodly performance? And why has no other manufacturer figured out similar tricks?
MrLarryKC 12:30AM (12/31/2008)
Uhhhhh it doesn't outperform the ZO6, and quite frankly, the last tests that have been performed on this car, a Z51 equipped corvette might outperform it!
Rick 10:58PM (12/30/2008)
This just goes to show how skewed some of these numbers can be. Especially by Motor Trend, who has in the past had some pretty inaccurate test results. Do it right the first time and you don't have to resell your product with an "Oops" attached.
Reply