• Dec 7, 2009
Super Snake vs. Godzilla - click above to watch the video

Recently, we ran a little poll in which we asked which car would you prefer: A Nissan GT-R or a Ford Shelby Mustang GT500? The results – which aren't too surprising – had just over two thirds of you rooting and tooting for Godzilla. And that's all fine. However, someone pointed out that the contest should have been between Godzilla and the new Shelby Super Snake. Well guess what?

Thankfully, Motor Trend has totally obliged you. In this video, the 412-horsepower and 393 pound-feet of torque (at the wheels, people, at the wheels) Nissan GT-R takes on the 635 hp and 581 lb-ft of torque Shelby GT500 Super Snake do the quarter-mile. The results? We're going to make you jump to find out, but we aren't surprised. At all. But then again, we've driven both cars (in fact, this appears to be the exact 2010 GT-R we drove). We will however say hats off to our buddy Ed Loh at MT for making such a fun video. Click here to watch it. Thanks to Pete for the tip!




[Source: Motor Trend]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 158 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      can we stop using Motortrend as an actual car test magazine/site?
      • 5 Years Ago
      I'd be happy if they bothered to launch the Mustang at something over, say, idle on the next go around. It has a manual transmission, use it.

      Put Campy in the chair of the Mustang so we can all see how it was meant to be driven.
      • 5 Years Ago
      GT-R does it again! What a bad ass car.
      • 5 Years Ago
      you're nuts
      • 5 Years Ago
      No surprise really. They're two different types of cars.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Try to put a GT500 on the Nürburgring :)
      • 5 Years Ago
      Not surprised.

      Everyone knows if the Super Snake had a proper set of tires on it, things would be much different. It's barely faster than a stock Mustang GT with those pathetic tires.... It might as well be launching on ice.
      Chris
      • 5 Years Ago
      Excellent demonstration of the advantages of awd...

      With the stock tires, yes the GTR is going to win hands down, every time, but put some DOT-approved drag tires on both, and I bet that it would have a different outcome.

      Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords magazine tested the Super Snake with drag tires and ran a 10.870 quarter mile at 134.14 mph, lets see the GTR do that.

        • 5 Years Ago
        @Chris
        Why didn't they test it against the Super Snake Prudhomme Edition? Oh that's right, because the Prudhomme run's 9's with only 50 more horsepower and a set of slicks.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Jesus... could MT have taken longer to get to the point?
      • 5 Years Ago
      This is Motor Trend...the hater of American Cars..there is no doubt the race was rigged. They are not going to let their car of the year be beat by a less expensive but better vehicle.

      As always, Motor Trend is a POS Rag!
      • 5 Years Ago
      All this bickering...

      I would give my left raisin just to own either one of these.
      • 5 Years Ago
      The GT-R produces FAR more than 393 ft-lbs at the wheels. At EACH wheel. Didn't we go through this last week?
        Carlos
        • 5 Years Ago
        Who ever was driving the GT500 must have been asleep at the wheel. Could you even consider that a launch?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Tourian,

        Even when you dyno a vehicle in its one-to-one gear (which isn't always possible depending on the vehicle), you still get a ridiculous torque number as the actual input. Remember that there are gears in the differential that aren't typically 1:1, then you've got the wheels and tires, which also manipulate the number heavily. Those are just the biggest factors, depending on the car there can be other factors that play with torque output.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The true amount of torque measured at the wheels is actually significantly greater than engine torque, thanks to gearing.

        For example, look at that Audi e-tron concept shown a while back. Audi reported it made 3319ft-lbs of torque at the wheels, which is true. Then you realize the "at the wheels" number is actually more around around 252ft-lbs once you adjust for gearing, tire size, ect.......like a dyno operator does.

        Think of it this way. In a hypothetical situation, lets say an engine is putting out exactly 300ft-lbs of torque on a perfectly accurate engine dyno.

        Then you put that engine in a car connected to a transmission, differential, wheels, ect....which each manipulate that torque. When you then measure the torque on a wheel dyno, the dyno might spit out a number like 4,200ft-lbs. Which, is the actual amount of force that wheel is generating. The operator then enters a correction factor for the transmission gearing, differential gearing, and tire size. Depending on the correction he get an "at the wheel" approximation, which might be 280ft-lbs or so. This is the "at the wheel" number we see on chassis dyno printouts.

        Then, to figure out roughly what the engine tq actually is, we can correct again for drivetrain losses (this is where that ~7% or so approximation that people use to correct from 'rwhp' to 'engine hp' is used). At that point , we then get 299.6ft-lbs of torque. This is our best approximation of what the engine is actually putting out. If we've done everything right, it should be reasonably close to what the engine would register on an engine dyno.

        Remember though, that a chassis dyno is not a perfectly accurate measure of engine hp and torque. It uses calculations and correction factors in order to arrive at a best estimate. In fact, you could run the same car on the same dyno multiple times and never get the same numbers. This is why a dyno operator will often do multiple runs, then average them, hoping to get the best possible estimate.
        Lar7789789
        • 5 Years Ago
        ripiopower
        11:42PM (12/07/2009)
        This is one of those cases --- The Nissan GT-R there nothing bad tah anybody can say about this car when it comes to performance.

        People try to compare this car to everything out there and it will never make sense . Why?
        because there nothing out there that can make a better performance car for the money'''
        at least not for now. it just one of those cars'''

        This car is a beast in every category''


        But we all know that the Mustang is losing traction, that's a given.
        • 5 Years Ago
        you might want to recheck your math, wntl2l7. each wheel doesn't put down 393 lb-ft of torque. that would put the combined torque at the crank to be over 1200 lb-ft. that 393 lb-ft of torque is distributed to all 4 corners (98.25 lb-ft/wheel). gt-r's torque can be diverted 100% to the rear wheels or split it 50/50.
        • 5 Years Ago
        That's why you don't dyno a car in first gear, or you will come up with something crazy like 1200 lb-ft of torque. You do it third or fourth, something that is close to 1:1 ratio to get an accurate reading.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I give up.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Lar7789789,

        Of course traction lost will be a given for a car like the Super Snake. But the cars are being compared stock for stock.
        • 5 Years Ago
        LS2LS7, you are right. I wasn't here for the debate last week, but it sounds like an interesting one. Anyone that truly believes the GT-R can only produce 393ftlbf at the wheels must not have passed high school physics.

        The "at the wheels" torque number that is often quoted is actually an estimated crankshaft torque minus drivetrain losses. It's actually a quite useless number, since that actual torque value is probably not seen at any point in the driveline.

        Yes, it's quite common for dyno operators and magazines and even other industry professionals to quote numbers like that "at the wheels", but anybody with a basic understanding of physics should know that they are incorrect. I would guess that most of the professionals using this terminology also understand that it's wrong. They use it because it's the common and accepted way of representing torque numbers. But everyone should know that it is not meant to be taken literally.
    • Load More Comments