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

    • Good luck on the weekend mate
    • Must have been an absolute nightmare to drive when the power steer was out, the rack ratio/wheel size/caster is all set up for power assistance
    • Welcome to SAU, what are you looking at buying?
    • I checked the injectors again (1 and 2, since they’re easiest to access) to make sure they weren’t clogged. Even though the entire fuel system had been cleaned, I wanted to be certain. Everything looked clean, so I reinstalled and connected everything. When I started the car to confirm everything was okay, it immediately revved up high, so I shut it off straight away. I checked to see if I’d missed a vacuum hose or something, but everything was connected. On the second attempt, the car ran without the high idle, but I noticed a distinct “compressed air” sound coming from the engine bay. Tracing the sound, I pushed injector #6 forward slightly and the noise stopped — it turned out it wasn’t seated properly, despite the fuel rail being bolted down. While holding it in place, the car idled steadily without stalling and ran for over 5 minutes. At this point, I pulled all six injectors out just in case I hadn’t seated them correctly or dirt had gotten onto the O-rings. Unfortunately, I discovered that I had damaged 3 out of 6 injectors (the OEM 270cc ones) during installation. So yes, this was my fault. Since only the pintle caps were damaged, I’ve ordered a Fuel Injector Service Kit from NZEFI to refurbish them. In the meantime, I reinstalled my new injectors – the car now idles fine for over 15 minutes without stalling. I have not attempted to drive it so far. It’s not perfect yet, as it hesitates when the throttle is pressed, but it’s a big improvement. Unplugging the IACV with the new injectors idles at around 800rpm, even with the IACV screw tightened fully. But this is probably due to tune.
    • I wanted to try and preserve the front bumper as long as possible, they're not cheap and are made to order in Japan. Taking inspiration from my previous K11 Micra build where I made an undertray for the Impul bumper, I did the same for this BN Sports bumper but a little slimmed down.  This time round I only made a 'skid plate' (if that's the correct wording/term) for just the bumper surface area, the Micra version covered the gap like an undertray. Starting off with a sheet of mild steel approx. 0.9mm thick 4ft x 2ft in size. I traced around the bumper, cut it out and cleaned the edges. Luckily I was able to get two halves from one piece of metal In the video I installed it as is, but I've since then I've removed it to spray and add a rubber edging trim. The rubber trim is suitable for 1-2mm and it's a really nice tight fit. The bolts had to be loosened due to the plates being too tight against the bumper, the trim wouldn't push on I used some stainless M6 flat headed bolts for a flusher finish (rather than hex heads poking down), I believe this style fastener is used for furniture too incase you struggle to source some. The corner's are a little wider, but this may be an advantage incase I get close to bumping it  The front grill got some attention, finally getting round to repairing it. Upon removal one fixing pulled itself out of the plastic frame, one side is M8 that fixes inside of the frame, where as the other side is M5. Not knowing I could get replacements, I cut down an M8 bolt, threaded it inside the frame along with a decent amount of JB Weld.  The mesh was replaced to match the bumper. One hole on the bonnet/hood had to be drilled out to 8mm to accommodate the new stud, once the glue had set it could be refitted. I think the reason the grill was double meshed was to hide the horn/bonnet latch (which makes sense) but I much prefer it matching the bumper Bumper refitted and it's looking much better IMO The Youtube video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVZP35io9MA
×
×
  • Create New...