Notices
General Automotive Discuss all things automotive here other than the RX-8

GT-R dyno results

Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:30 AM
  #1  
playdoh43's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 1
From: University of Maryland
GT-R dyno results

http://japancarblog.com/2008/02/r35-...p-in-the-nuts/



Just a few days ago Ben Linney, the rich bloke from english land who emptied out his pockets and imported a GT-R, had his GT-R run for a small test day. What the dyno results showed was quite suprising: the official HP figures weren’t right.

Official word from Nissan is the R35 GT-R’s maximum power is 473bhp (480PS/353KW) at 6400rpm. The car is totally factory standard (though soon to be tuned), is running standard boost and is just run in. Before putting on the dyno, Linney did a quick oil change with Castrol Edge, as the car saw some track action last week. Using BP Ultimate 102 unleaded, the car recorded a staggering 520 bhp @ 6,617rpm!

Great marketing gimmick for Castrol… bragging rights for Nissan fans the world over.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:34 AM
  #2  
crimson-rain's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
anybody got $80K I can use????
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:41 AM
  #3  
Ever Hernandez's Avatar
Rx8_4eVeR
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, Cali
F"n sweet man, the R35 is definitely on the dream cars list top spot.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:47 AM
  #4  
Cody Red's Avatar
always filling [the c]up
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
From: Alice, Texas
once again, the R rises to the top!
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:50 AM
  #5  
Ross_Dawg's Avatar
Registered Toker
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,545
Likes: 1
From: Bend, OR
lol thats awesome! but was that beacuse he was on 102 oct.? 102 would greatly increase HP on FI
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 11:58 AM
  #6  
Clavius's Avatar
Its all about Style...
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
From: South of Boston, MA
Curious as to what type of Dyno they used.
That and if I remember doesnt the Japanese Auto Makers have a silent gentelmans agreement to not produce cars with XXX amount of HP. Though we all know that it not the real case anymore but maybe this is why the low figure was given out. Nissan didnt wish to offend the other Automakers by producing/releasing such high numbers. Just mindless speculation but damn that number over production released figures is wow!
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 12:05 PM
  #7  
RCCAZ 1's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Friend of mine in Wisconsin should be getting his mid June. Can't wait!
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 12:24 PM
  #8  
JRichter's Avatar
Void Where Prohibited
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
From: Mineola, TX
Originally Posted by Clavius
That and if I remember doesnt the Japanese Auto Makers have a silent gentelmans agreement to not produce cars with XXX amount of HP. Though we all know that it not the real case anymore but maybe this is why the low figure was given out. Nissan didnt wish to offend the other Automakers by producing/releasing such high numbers. Just mindless speculation but damn that number over production released figures is wow!
I think this was lifted but I agree that they are still putting out conservative power figures. Wasn't it 276hp for years? A lot of top end Japanese performance cars at that time had exactly or close to that amount back then which looked suspicious.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 12:26 PM
  #9  
Ever Hernandez's Avatar
Rx8_4eVeR
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, Cali
Originally Posted by Ross_Dawg
lol thats awesome! but was that beacuse he was on 102 oct.? 102 would greatly increase HP on FI
I'm sure that and some fresh oil were factors in the final numbers.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 12:40 PM
  #10  
jones75254's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Doesnt surprise me much. The publisized accelration #'s and the 470 bhp figure didnt match up to me in first place. I mean with 470 bhp, factor in 15-20% drivetrain loss, so lets just say even at 400 whp on a car that heavy putting down 0-60 in 3.5?? Didnt seem to fit, but the dyno #'s listed above do. Damn.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 01:11 PM
  #11  
Batman&TheBatmobile's Avatar
♥'s racing beat
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 176
Likes: 1
From: jersey, BITCH
oooomahgawd
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 01:25 PM
  #12  
rotarygod's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
I can't stand it when people use high octane fuel just to cheat their numbers. I also don't like when people try to use some drivetrain loss formula to figure out what the power level is at the engine. I'm sure it is rated a little bit conservative but I'll bet not by much. It's probably around 490 hp or so. Not that this level of power is anything to laugh at.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 02:45 PM
  #13  
playdoh43's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 1
From: University of Maryland
Originally Posted by Ross_Dawg
lol thats awesome! but was that beacuse he was on 102 oct.? 102 would greatly increase HP on FI
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I can't stand it when people use high octane fuel just to cheat their numbers.
european 102 oct translate to 96 octane by US calculation methods, thats the standard octane they use for their premium gas in europe.
Reply
Old Feb 18, 2008 | 02:58 PM
  #14  
rotarygod's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
That makes more sense. Still a little higher than what we get here but not enough to be a huge difference. Very nice numbers.

I still do hate it when people use higher octane than they'd run on the street when they dyno though. It seems like every RX-7 guy cheats his numbers this way.
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 08:25 AM
  #15  
77mjd's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
From: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
So maybe some castrol edge and 102 octane will get my stock 8 up to about 275 at the engine?
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 08:40 AM
  #16  
DailyDriver2k5's Avatar
The Prototype
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
I think that 102 octane helped a bit , but it doesn't surprise me that the GT-R is making more HP than stated. Nissan tends to underate there motors. My 05 nissan Titan was always putting out 317 BHP compared to the 305 that Nissan stated. A 06 and 07 put out the same numbers as my 05 does. The new SAE uncovered the correct info.

Z cars never seem to be affected by underated Hp claims for some reason, there always on the nose with there HP ratings. Nissan just hurts them by adding unwanted pounds to rob them of there small Hp increases.
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 09:29 AM
  #17  
playdoh43's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 1
From: University of Maryland
according to autoblog the smaller/shorter Z mule thats testing around nurburgring for the past few months is actually the new 370Z thats going to debute later this year in NY autoshow. They thought Nissan is working on a new smaller model, but it has been confirmed to be the new Z. Apparently they are indeed trying to make it lighter
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 05:22 PM
  #18  
s13lover's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
Originally Posted by rotarygod
I also don't like when people try to use some drivetrain loss formula to figure out what the power level is at the engine.
I hate that too. If your drivetrain consumes 35hp when the car is stock, it will always consume 35hp, regardless of any increase or decrease to the motor’s power output (unless something was done to the tranny, driveshaft, diff, etc.).

For that GT-R a 63hp loss, even though it is awd, is a bit high IMO.
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 05:50 PM
  #19  
arghx7's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
Likes: 4
If your drivetrain consumes 35hp when the car is stock, it will always consume 35hp regardless of any increase or decrease to the motor’s power output
Uhh do you have any evidence for this?
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 06:19 PM
  #20  
CnnmnSchnpps's Avatar
No means yes
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,507
Likes: 0
From: Jersey City NJ
Damn, that's a whole lotta power..
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 06:30 PM
  #21  
jones75254's Avatar
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 0
From: Ohio
Originally Posted by rotarygod
.....I also don't like when people try to use some drivetrain loss formula to figure out what the power level is at the engine.
Guys, c'mon....a stock 2005 RX-8 is more accurately around 220 bhp and 180whp, which equals around 20% loss.

The stock 2005 350Z is like 290bhp and 230whp, which is a around 20% as well.

Yes, the GTR in this example has 12% loss but is still close to the range. The 15-20% wasnt exactly definitive, but it is a close enough generalization to the reality of drivetrain loss percentage for most cars. You act like this "formula" is SO off, when in reality, it fits most stock cars within a couple points.
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 06:57 PM
  #22  
XDEEDUBBX's Avatar
RX8 HA HA
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,772
Likes: 5
From: Gardena Cali 310
dam nissan!! dam mazda!!
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 07:21 PM
  #23  
rotarygod's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
Originally Posted by jones75254
Guys, c'mon....a stock 2005 RX-8 is more accurately around 220 bhp and 180whp, which equals around 20% loss.
There have been people that have dyno'd at 165 and there are others who have topped 200. You just can't tell on this car. I personally don't feel the car comes with even 220 hp stock. A few of us personally know an internally stock Renesis that hits 230 hp at the wheels!

Not all cars have the same drivetrain loss as others. FWD cars for example don't lose as much to drivetrain. However not all FWD cars lose the same amount and neither do all RWD cars. This alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE to use a drivetrain loss formula to determine crank hp without actually measuring drivetrain loss directly in it's own dedicated test. It CAN NOT work EVER!!!
Reply
Old Feb 19, 2008 | 07:44 PM
  #24  
imput1234's Avatar
I ♥ Drifting!!!
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,069
Likes: 5
From: Lexington, KY
I want one :drool
Reply
Old Feb 20, 2008 | 08:18 AM
  #25  
DailyDriver2k5's Avatar
The Prototype
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by rotarygod
There have been people that have dyno'd at 165 and there are others who have topped 200. You just can't tell on this car. I personally don't feel the car comes with even 220 hp stock. A few of us personally know an internally stock Renesis that hits 230 hp at the wheels!

Not all cars have the same drivetrain loss as others. FWD cars for example don't lose as much to drivetrain. However not all FWD cars lose the same amount and neither do all RWD cars. This alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE to use a drivetrain loss formula to determine crank hp without actually measuring drivetrain loss directly in it's own dedicated test. It CAN NOT work EVER!!!
I was thinking the same , everycar is always in a ball park figure within 20+/- WHP on the dyno. I been on this forum since 2006 and have comparing alot of dyno's on and off this forum of the 8 . I seen some dyno as low as 160HP some high as 204Hp on a stock 232HP Renisis. But what also plays a big part in the HP game , is where the car was dynoed(sea level,mountain, desert, etc), condition of rotary , type of dyno, etc.... like RotaryGod explained , it just impossible to pinpoint a static figure for our cars.

I guess when we buy our cars, we either get a real factory "freak" or a factory "snoozer". I haven't dynoed my stock RX-8 car yet, but i have run against 5 diffrent Rx-8 , 2 stock trim 232Hp, 3 guys with bolt ons and have beat them all by a solid 2 car lengths give or take a few feet , better driver, possible.... but they all agree that my Rx-8 is a pretty strong car.

I went back to mazda before the new year and test drove a used Shinka, it felt weak compared to my RX-8. It was strong but not as strong as my 8. My 1999 Mustang was on the weak side compared to my buddies 99 stang. He was a horrible driver but danm his stock Mustang made up for his lack of driving talent, he got a factory freak , a very strong motor that would shame even slightly modded mustangs.

I think alot of us get some good ones, alot of us get some bad ones, then alot of use get the rest that is in between.

Last edited by DailyDriver2k5; Feb 20, 2008 at 08:27 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM.