Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Porsche specs

power 357.9 kw / 480 bhp @ 6000 rpm

bhp/weight 302.84 bhp per weight

torque 620 nm / 457.3 ft lbs @ 1950 rpm

weight 1588 kg / 3500 lbs

top speed 310.6 kph / 193 mph

0 - 60 mph 3.6 seconds

0 - 1/4 mile 11.9 seconds

GT-R Specs

power 352.7 kw / 473 bhp @ 6400 rpm

bhp/weight 275.0 bhp per weight

torque 588.42 nm / 434 ft lbs @ 3200 to 5200rpm rpm

weight 1720 kg / 3792 lbs

top speed 310.6 kph / 193 mph

0 - 60 mph 3.5 seconds

0 - 1/4 mile 11.7 seconds

Me and my brother were talking about this yesterday. Now when you think about this in terms of 1/4 mile alone it comes down to power to weight really with two cars like this that are both 4wd. So unless nissan are fudging there 0-60 and 1/4mile times, how can it be so fast?

Could nissan be lying about the power output of the car?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/197442-how-is-the-r35-gt-r-so-fast/
Share on other sites

In a recent carpoint article Motor's David Morley managed 0-100kmh in 4.0 (and they said it would be hard to do much better), but they managed a 0-400m time of 12.1 while hitting the 180kmh limiter before they reached the 400m point. So it is definitely an 11 second car.

the numbers don't add up to me either, but then we don't know what revs the launch control launches from - maybe it launces from redline?

Me and my brother were talking about this yesterday. Now when you think about this in terms of 1/4 mile alone it comes down to power to weight really with two cars like this that are both 4wd.

No, acceleration times come down to power to weight and gearing. Its been discussed in this subforum before.

It's the gearbox. fast shifts are easy now.

Porsche has semi-auto gearbox option aswell...

No, acceleration times come down to power to weight and gearing. Its been discussed in this subforum before.

That forum really goes into no detail at all, just fools and there own opinions... gearing shmearing.. maybe if the cars were almost the same weight.. but they are approx 150kg difference.. thats like two cars racing 1 with 3 ppl in it the other with 1.

That and the Porsche are a manual box with a clutch. The GTR is DSG, it can change gears much quicker, which in turn will keep boost pressure between gearshifts and pull away.

Nope porsche 997 911 T offers a semi-auto box. the times i have quoted are from that semi-auto option which is the fastest porsche

witchcraft.

This makes the most sense to me.. im going to have to agree wit you.

I say its either not as fast as nissan claims, or there fudging the power figures.. its just not possible

Has anyone read the specs from the Official Nissan Global site ? Anyway the VR38 is indicated as a 'net' power figure (in car) of 480 hp or 353 kw. The footnote indicates that this is approx. 15% lower than the 'Gross' power (engine only). If this is correct the bhp is actually closer to 560 hp for engine only. Just thought I'd point this out as nobody seems to have mentioned this on any of the forums.

Cheers

The URL is http://press.nissan-global.com/PRESSKIT/NI...LISH/index.html

to check this out yourself in the specs part

Edited by BK
Has anyone read the specs from the Official Nissan Global site ? Anyway the VR38 is indicated as a 'net' power figure (in car) of 480 hp or 353 kw. The footnote indicates that this is approx. 15% lower than the 'Gross' power (engine only). If this is correct the bhp is actually closer to 560 hp for engine only. Just thought I'd point this out as nobody seems to have mentioned this on any of the forums.

Cheers

The URL is http://press.nissan-global.com/PRESSKIT/NI...LISH/index.html

to check this out yourself in the specs part

exactly, since when was the 32/33/34 GTR even remotely 280hp?

In car manufactures terms, doing quick times with massive hp isn't showcasing a company's ability. Doing Porsche beating times with "only" 480hp demonstrates one hell of a design.

I wouldn't be surprised if these cars did 420ish awhp straight from the factory.

Well gearing and power band can also have something to do with it, having said that i imagine the Porsche power band would be just as good if not better than the GTR.

But yes cans can be geared for acceleration or cruise. Not sure what the gearing difference is between them both.

Well gearing and power band can also have something to do with it, having said that i imagine the Porsche power band would be just as good if not better than the GTR.

The Top Gear article says the Porsche's engine is a little more flexible, probably because of the VGT since the displacement is about the same.

The Top Gear article says the Porsche's engine is a little more flexible, probably because of the VGT since the displacement is about the same.

I say this has alot to do with it

torque 620 nm / 457.3 ft lbs @ 1950 rpm

Dont get me wrong for bringing this article up, this car is practically my favourite car, its performance for the price and practicality of the car is truelly unmatched. The main reason im bringing it to light is because i believe that the car is actually making more power than nissan claim.

Remember in japan, although the gentlemens agreement has long since expired, car manufacturers are still urged not to create super powerful cars that can reach extreme speeds.

This is the first japanese car that truelly goes beyond the 206kw barrier

Porsche has semi-auto gearbox option aswell...

That forum really goes into no detail at all, just fools and there own opinions... gearing shmearing.. maybe if the cars were almost the same weight.. but they are approx 150kg difference.. thats like two cars racing 1 with 3 ppl in it the other with 1.

Nope porsche 997 911 T offers a semi-auto box. the times i have quoted are from that semi-auto option which is the fastest porsche

This makes the most sense to me.. im going to have to agree wit you.

I say its either not as fast as nissan claims, or there fudging the power figures.. its just not possible

Porsche doesn't offer a "semi-auto" box that you seem so certain of. Porsche offer a traditional 6 speed manual, and an AUTOMATIC gearbox in the 997 Turbo, as in, a slush box. It has "tiptronic" operation, but in no way is it even remotely similar to GTR's DSG gearbox, or for that matter Ferrari and other's paddle shift manuals.

The Porsche Turbo "tiptronic" is quicker accelerating from standstill than the manual yes, mainly due to the ability to load up the torque convertor, spooling the variable geaometry turbos whilst at standstill.

GTR's performance can partly be put down to the exceptionally quick shifts of DSG style boxes (it's actually pre-selected the next gear, and is just waiting for the shift paddle to be pulled to change). This would go someway toward achieving those times, but I'm still sceptical that they can be repeated in the real world.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
    • I do this, I also don't get the joke  
    • Return flow cooler will be killing you I reckon. You can certainly push more through a low mount setup but they're good numbers for a stock looking engine bay.  Mine made 345rwkw (hub) at 22psi on 98 with a "highflow" on a stock manifold but it's a long way from a normal high flow or standard engine. I used one of those Turbosmart IWG-75's and it was great with the Motec running closed loop boost with pressure being applied to both sides of the diaphragm. 
    • Hey man do you have pic of adaptor plate by any chance I need to match up the bolt holes as my gearbox adaptor plate ones are way off the only bolts of starter motor are matching thanks 
×
×
  • Create New...