Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

When the R35 GTR was released I had a feeling that the kilowatt figure of 353 at the engine was an understatement. I had a thought that the engine kilowatt figure was in actual fact the power at the wheels. If you go to http://www.gtrblog.com/ you can see one japanese owner had the GTR on a dyno and recorded a figure of 482ps at the hubs which equates to around 359kw at the wheels. I am claiming that the GTR is having 420-450kw at the engine. That is the reason why a car weighing more than 1.7 tonnes can do the quarter mile in 11.7 seconds and the 0-100 km dash in under 4 seconds, although the fast gearing also plays a role. Any thoughts on this by the forum members would be appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/198254-r35-horsepower-figures/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It wouldnt surprise me at all if the R35 GTR has more power than is stated. I doubt it would be as high as 420-450kw as with that sort of power it would be a flat 11 sec car. Im thinking more along the lines of 20-30kw increase, say 370-380kw. It will be interseting to see what sort of power atw it will deliver. with 353kw you would expect 270-280AWKW? I think anything over 290-300AWKW would equate to more than 353 FWKW.

I readily agree that it's disappointing that Nissan made the GTR so damn heavy. But, Nissan needed to compete somewhat with the likes of Porsche, and to have the same sort of previous generation GTR interior carry over is just not acceptable for the price they are demanding for a 'Nissan'. The interior is very well done IMO and distinct from other car makers, as is the exterior. Surely though, to strip 100kgs, Nissan would need to take out more than just the rear seats, replace some parts with carbon fibre and lose the adjustable suspension? The addition of a roll cage if they decide to go down that path will add more weight. Ideally, the GTR would be supreme if it lost 200kgs, but weight distribution would have to be taken into consideration. The V Spec and V Spec II models will be interesting. What's the anticipated weight loss anyone know?

Interior isnt the place to look when trying to reduce weight - its only made up of plastic, wiring and cloth material.

(R32 GTR)

Entire boot trimming = 3.4kg (the spare tyre weighs more than that)

Rear bumper = 4kg (most of that is the reverse lights + 2 brackets to hold it on)

Rear seats = 11.5kg (once again most of that is the metal bracing)

Dash = 6.2kg (you need that so cant save any weight there)

Wiring harness in the entire car would be lucky to be 15kg but that's also required.

It's funny seeing people at the drags remove just their back seat to try and go faster (you aren't gonna go much faster removing 11.5kg) when instead they could remove the passenger seat + rear seat (~25kg) and it would be the same equivalent weight of stripping out the entire interior + boot trimmings.

Weight savings need to be made from the engine, driveline and suspension by using cf where possible.

Edited by benm
I just wish it wasn't so bloody heavy, the older GT-R's were already heavy enough as it is. They should have made a concerted effort to avoid putting on any weight at the very least.

cant understand why so many are concerned with its weight. FFS it does an 11.3 qtr mile. What more do you need from a road car ???

cant understand why so many are concerned with its weight. FFS it does an 11.3 qtr mile. What more do you need from a road car ???

Actually it does an 11.6 with a clutch frying launch. No owner would launch like that repeatedly because you'll either fry your clutch or break your gearbox.

GT-Rs were heavy enough as it was; in tighter corners their weight could really be felt and could prove to be quite tricky to handle in some situations (mainly in a series of tight corners where the weight of the car is shifting from one side to the other and/or front to rear; and also when entering a corner hard under breaks, the front would could push wide because of the weight).

Even though Nissan seem to have engineered the car very well, imagine how much faster it would be had they kept the weight down.

Actually it does an 11.6 with a clutch frying launch. No owner would launch like that repeatedly because you'll either fry your clutch

You're expecting an AWD mid-11 second car to be gentle on clutches while launching?

You are kidding right?

There's just no pleasing some people!

Back on topic:

I would suspect a similar loss in power from the wheels to the engine as previous models (~80hp). Therefore, basing this assumption on an accurate 480hp at the wheels measurement, the GTR probably has about 560bhp (415kw at the flywheel).

Why do people think that drivetrain loss = 25%? It isn't proportional to the amount of power the car is making...

You're expecting an AWD mid-11 second car to be gentle on clutches while launching?

You are kidding right?

There's just no pleasing some people!

Back on topic:

I would suspect a similar loss in power from the wheels to the engine as previous models (~80hp). Therefore, basing this assumption on an accurate 480hp at the wheels measurement, the GTR probably has about 560bhp (415kw at the flywheel).

Why do people think that drivetrain loss = 25%? It isn't proportional to the amount of power the car is making...

No i was simply making the point that those fast times require a fair amount of revs which wears out the drivetrain. Is that so hard to accept?

Can no one see that if the car was lighter it would be faster? Whats the problem with keeping the weight of a car to a minimum?

No i was simply making the point that those fast times require a fair amount of revs which wears out the drivetrain. Is that so hard to accept?

:laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014:

Fast quarter times require revs....? Thats some insightful stuff right there!

Can no one see that if the car was lighter it would be faster? Whats the problem with keeping the weight of a car to a minimum?

Lighter = compromise.

These cars have to have a modicum of luxury if they are going to be sold to people who can afford $100+k supercars, not boy racers who only care about 1/4 times.

Why aren't we innundated with Lotus Exige S's? Because not many people who can afford them, want to climb into a go-kart for a day-to-day grind, even if they do only weigh 800ish kg's and do 0-100 in under 4sec.

As said before, it does 11.6 down the quarter (so far) and 0-100 in 3.3, what more do you want???

Nissan Engineers aren't idiots, if they could save weight they would. Obviously though they have to keep in mind the marketing potential of things like adjustable suspension. It may be wank-factor, but wank-factor sells cars... just ask BMW.

Edited by Brockaz
:laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014:

Fast quarter times require revs....? Thats some insightful stuff right there!

...

More revs means more drivetrain wear in an AWD car. Do you launch from high revs in your car? You'll be replacing your gearbox and clutch sooner rather than later just to get those really fast straight line times.

If the car was lighter, you would need less revs at launch to get equally fast times and your drivetrain would last longer. Are we clear now?

I run a Tripple plate OS Giken clutch and OS Giken gearbox... don't think I'll be replacing anything too soon.

If you bought a new R35 GTR for the SOLE reason that it does an 11.6 1/4 mile time, then 1. You're an idiot, and 2. You just forked out 100k+ for a car, 2k is nothing for a decent clutch.

Once again, what do you want from this car? A well-priced production supercar capable of being driven for hours on end without being annoying, or a stripped out drag car?

I wasn't referring to your specific car; it was a general and hypothetical statement.

The 0-100 and 1/4 mile times get quoted so often its ridiculous, i'm just pointing out the fact that you have to abuse the car to get those times. Once again, if the car was lighter then it would achieve those times without the need for mechanical abuse.

That is all I am saying on this subject because I've made my point. If the car was lighter it would be faster in every aspect, which is what you'd want for a car that is billed as a track car.

I'd like to see the rolling start figures in comparison to a 911 turbo or a C6Z06; I believe the weight of the car will play a big factor in the ingear acceleration tests.

Righteo.

If it made 600kw at 2000rpm you wouldn't have to push it much to do those times either. Maybe thats the answer...

You're right, lighter cars go faster. I'm sure this insight will be appreciated by the Nissan engineering team, they probably never thought of it....

Let me write it in caps for you:

THE LIGHTER THE CAR IS, THE MORE IS COMPROMISED!

I don't want an Exige interior/proportions, which doesn't have so much as a centre console or leg room fit for 2 midgets, and I'm sure those buying this car don't either.

Righteo.

If it made 600kw at 2000rpm you wouldn't have to push it much to do those times either. Maybe thats the answer...

You're right, lighter cars go faster. I'm sure this insight will be appreciated by the Nissan engineering team, they probably never thought of it....

Let me write it in caps for you:

THE LIGHTER THE CAR IS, THE MORE IS COMPROMISED!

I don't want an Exige interior/proportions, which doesn't have so much as a centre console or leg room fit for 2 midgets, and I'm sure those buying this car don't either.

Weight has no effect on top speed at all.

Yeah no way is any manufacturer going to make a light flagship car. Lambos, porker turbos etc etc etc they are all over 1500kg these days. Crash regs, interior sound deadening and electronics (safety, TCS, ABS, EDB, DSX etc etc etc) are simply heavy.

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

    • I am getting the same issue. Did you resolve it? I just got it after installing my new super coppermix and literally the same issue, new fork, new 18mm carrier, release bearing that came with the kit and replicated the exact same sound. 
    • If you like - I have the STL files so I can email em. There's a couple of gotchas (i.e the holes are not threaded so you might need/will need) to utilize some M3 melt-in threads for some of the points. However if you want to be super accurate, and are willing to remove your calipers and your SHOCKS it's a really good tool. You also might need to scale the part that measures the tyre width a bit wider. It defaults to a 7.5in tyre and I mean who is running that. Luckily with the magic of CAD this is very easy to rescale.
    • jeebus. glad you weren't under it while performing the stunt. Also thanks for the link to the wheel measurer, exactly what I needed
    • In the older stuff there were very significant differences 2wd to 4wd, for example Stagea had strut front end for 2wd and double wishbone for 4wd so it was not minor to swap. From poking around the 2wd v37, it *looks* like it might be more possible; some of the parts specifically have "2wd" stamped on them which suggests the platforms are more similar. You'd still want to start with a 4wd half cut to swap stuff from though. I'd suggest if you don't have a tune on the ECU you don't really need one on the trans either. Throttle mapping is in the ECU side (and you can always use a Roar Pedal if you want the throttle to actually respond to your foot), and really if you are happy with the stock power you probably accept the stock trans behaviour too....its all made to be "sporty" not racey.
    • So, updates. I have not washed the car since it came back from Tassie. I've driven it around a bit but not got around to actually sorting it out. I DID raise it because I cracked the rear bar leaving a hotel which was very distressing. Interestingly, the car drives more compliant now that it's raised a fair bit (5mm front, 15mm rear). Also noticed that my FR height was 10mm lower than FL. So that's now sorted out, too. I also bought this and had it printed: https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/1576422240/wheel-and-tire-fitment-tool-universal?ref=shop_home_feat_1&dd=1&logging_key=08f604d9fa4cc383550ba985e6ac85cd5cac7fbb%3A1576422240 Now, if I was smart I would have taken my brake calipers off to actually use this correctly but it was evident enough to me that in the region where the caliper was... there was nothing to hit suspension/guard/arm wise. So I'm going with "it'll be fine" after using the tool to hopefully very precisely measure the wheel clearance. Also while doing this, I had the very VERY bad idea of jacking one of the wheels/suspension arms up while the rest of the car was on jack stands. I did this to see how the arm would travel. This all was well and good until the car slid off the stands and went through a fence. So don't do that. Incredibly nobody was hurt and there was only minor damage to the rear bumper as the car didn't have far to slide, and had 3-4 wheels on it. The only damage turned out to be the fence itself which was easy to fix, and a little bit of damage to the fibreglass rear bumper trim. I had already planned to try a touch up paint kit to fix the time I drove into my garage door to see if it'd help in the interim before I get it fixed properly. I used the Dr Colorchip kit after looking online and seeing everyone talking about it. Yes it's made for chips and not huge broken missing pieces and I'll be 500% recommending it for stone chips after using it for stupid things like me. This took about ... 10 minutes and looking at the half assed photo the 30 second job I did on the bumper corner was almost perfect just by using the tiny little brush and painting it in. The sealact stuff to remove over-painting is really useful, so if/when I do it again I'll likely slather the touch up paint well over it and then clean it up with the cleaning solution. The wheels should arrive in a couple of weeks. I am still kinda confident after doing a stupid amount of measuring (and borrowing a set of 18x10.5+15) that they will not fit because I overlooked something, somehow and flew too close to the sun. ALSO R34 GTR guard liners do not fit on a GTT. I bought the undertray brake duct guides and had the wonderful problem of them not fitting my intake, my oil cooler and the liners themselves were even worse. Attempting to fit them won't work in general - You would have to cut them up as another poster mentioned as the bodywork is different on the GTT. At least I can try to resell them. So instead of cutting those up, I cut up my old already-cut-up GTT liners and extended them by using some PP plastic and drilling some 8mm holes for some nissan clips for the 'extra' bit. Because I was happy to cut them I was able to mount them pretty damn forward so I now have some semblance of guard liners, and the brake vents seal the bumper from the bottom. It sort-of-looks like this, to give some idea - If you look at the GTR and then the GTT this is when I realised that I needed to seriously measure as the inside of the rim area is entirely, entirely, entirely different and could not take any internet measurements for granted.   
×
×
  • Create New...