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

    • Please use a modern ECU. PowerFC with the Nintendo Gameboy controller is horrible. It's not 2005 anymore.
    • The car/ECU will have all the sensor that it needs and expect to have. I think i do not have to explain to you how the Link is way better specialy if you have swapped engine   I just do not want to deal with any "problems" cuz i have only Nistune which i learned is not that great and in my case cant even deal with that speed problem (Link can) And of course it will be way more easier to tune and diagnose and safe. And for the ECU/speed problem...i dont know.
    • Per Mark Roberts of Sonictune: Mark Robert Author At this time, no. No ETA either 2016-17 models. You will be able to purchase and install a 2018.5+ TCU though   TCU purchasing and pricing info! As we near the release of TCU tuning, I am going to answer some questions I get asked often.   What do I need for TCU tuning? At this time, you will need a 2018.5+ TCU to be able to tune. If you have a 2016-to early 2018, you will need to replace your TCU with the newer version. One good way to know if your TCU is good is if you have auto upshift in manual mode in 1st gear around 6500 rpms. If your manual 1st gear goes to 7k rpm and will hit the rev limiter unless you shift, you have the older TCU.   Why do I need to buy another ecu license/phone flash if I already have it on my ECU tune? The TCU is its own computer module. It is completely separate from the ECU. Because of this, you will be required to purchase a TCU license and, if your tuner has it, the phone flash license required to tune it via phone/bluetooth.   Do I need TCU tuning? TCU tuning is NOT required. However, the faster your setup, the more it will assist in track and dragy time consistency.   If I’m ECU tuned by (tuner A) can I get my TCU tuned by (Tuner ? Yes, since it’s a different module and a completely separate flash, you can have two different tuners. However, it is highly recommend that you have both tuned by the same tuner. For me, my TCU tuning will directly complement my ECU tuning style and features and running my ECU and another TCU or vice versa MIGHT cause some issues. At this time and for the foreseeable future, I will only be tuning my current ECU tuned customers TCUs.     I have a SYVECS AWD controller. Do I still need it? Yes! The AWD controllers main job is to control your AWD system. However, with TCU tuning, you will no longer need the auto-shift function as that will be done through the TCU. The AWD controller will still be very beneficial for racers looking to maximize traction on the launch.     Shift schedule changes: holding gears longer at lower pedal input as well as max shift rpm changes. Please note, the new ECU race rom coming out will address 90% of the shitty drivability issues these cars have through custom maps from myself and Racebox—as well as others I am sure.   Increase shift speeds: as seen in the videos I’ve been posting, the TCU shifts much faster once tuned.   Increased shift pressures: as also seen in the videos, much firmer full throttle shifts.      
    • Per Mark Roberts of Sonictune:     Mark Robert Author At this time, no. No ETA either 2016-17 models. You will be able to purchase and install a 2018.5+ TCU though   TCU purchasing and pricing info! As we near the release of TCU tuning, I am going to answer some questions I get asked often.   What do I need for TCU tuning? At this time, you will need a 2018.5+ TCU to be able to tune. If you have a 2016-to early 2018, you will need to replace your TCU with the newer version. One good way to know if your TCU is good is if you have auto upshift in manual mode in 1st gear around 6500 rpms. If your manual 1st gear goes to 7k rpm and will hit the rev limiter unless you shift, you have the older TCU.   Why do I need to buy another ecu license/phone flash if I already have it on my ECU tune? The TCU is its own computer module. It is completely separate from the ECU. Because of this, you will be required to purchase a TCU license and, if your tuner has it, the phone flash license required to tune it via phone/bluetooth.   Do I need TCU tuning? TCU tuning is NOT required. However, the faster your setup, the more it will assist in track and dragy time consistency.   If I’m ECU tuned by (tuner A) can I get my TCU tuned by (Tuner ? Yes, since it’s a different module and a completely separate flash, you can have two different tuners. However, it is highly recommend that you have both tuned by the same tuner. For me, my TCU tuning will directly complement my ECU tuning style and features and running my ECU and another TCU or vice versa MIGHT cause some issues. At this time and for the foreseeable future, I will only be tuning my current ECU tuned customers TCUs.     I have a SYVECS AWD controller. Do I still need it? Yes! The AWD controllers main job is to control your AWD system. However, with TCU tuning, you will no longer need the auto-shift function as that will be done through the TCU. The AWD controller will still be very beneficial for racers looking to maximize traction on the launch.     Shift schedule changes: holding gears longer at lower pedal input as well as max shift rpm changes. Please note, the new ECU race rom coming out will address 90% of the shitty drivability issues these cars have through custom maps from myself and Racebox—as well as others I am sure.   Increase shift speeds: as seen in the videos I’ve been posting, the TCU shifts much faster once tuned.   Increased shift pressures: as also seen in the videos, much firmer full throttle shifts.      
    • The fancy pants red shock tower brace is finally incoming from MX5 Mania, getting it shipped from 'Merica has been a long and problematic process, and GWR, the 'Merican supplier will not ship directly to consumers outside of the US, Mania basically had to order a heap of them, the colour choice was silver, or red, and we all know anything red adds 5 killerwasps of dynotorques..... Whilst it does fit over a 2.5, and I've seen a few photos and videos of it being installed and fitting, google also says it might get real close to the FAB9 intake front runner, people in the US says it does fit with the FAB9 intake, except for one person who said it slightly touched.......so there is that.....LOL..... As it seems that I am the first in AU to have this combination of parts there's no local knowledge about fitment, so I'm just a willing guinea pig in this endeavour, I'll cross my fingers and toes and hope for the best In other news, I ordered stuff from China  on the same day I ordered the 23° silicone bend from Victoria, the stuff from China arrived a day ago, the 23° silicone bend is still travelling around Australia thanks to Australia Post, and "may" be here next week
×
×
  • Create New...