Edmunds Full-Test - 2012 R35 Nissan GT-R Black Edition
02-05-2011, 02:09 PM
#1
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds Full-Test - 2012 R35 Nissan GT-R Black Edition Godzilla Is Rippin' Pissed for 2012, Look Out
The front grille opening is slightly larger on the 2012 GT-R.
By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor | Published Feb 2, 2011
Perhaps you remember the original Nissan GT-R as easy to drive but uninvolving. You might have surmised that, like a digital coffee maker or fancy toaster, it got the job done but lacked personality. Maybe you even read enough Internet forums to convince yourself that it was an appliance — warmed over electro-mechanics turned into speed. Technology, you probably concluded, can be so dull. Yawn.
Kazutoshi Mizuno, chief engineer for the R35, is fed up with that attitude. And he's delivered the revised 2012 Nissan GT-R with enough capability — in the way of 45 additional horsepower, bigger front brake rotors and refined suspension tuning — to extinguish your inner bench racer's technological indifference. Anyone who's still singing that tune, Mizuno thinks, hasn't driven this car.
But we have.
Reality Check
Winter is a good time to attack a California back road in the GT-R.
And what we've learned during our instrumented performance testing and numerous laps around California's Buttonwillow Raceway is convincing. The GT-R, no doubt about it, is a full-fledged and wildly capable supercar. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Certainly, there's a measure of control here that's not available in other cars with this much (or more) power, but let's not mistake control for blandness. Because, in this case, there's nothing bland about the GT-R.
You see, even in this business, where 500-hp cars come along every few weeks, the speed and control that accompany the GT-R driving experience are rare. Even more rare, however, are drivers with the ability to effectively use this much power.
Every manufacturer recognizes this. It's why Chevy offers Performance Traction Management on its 638-hp Corvette ZR1. It's why Mercedes-Benz won't allow stability control to be fully disabled on its most powerful models. And it's why the Nissan GT-R, in all its torque-biasing, electronically controlled glory, exists at all.
Because control, friends, kicks ***. Like it or not.
Just Plain Silly Fast
This carbon brace adds strength to the body.
And we won't pretend to be the driver who can handle this car unencumbered by electronic aids on a mostly wet track. So we left them on around the road course. And despite the moisture, the 530-hp 2012 GT-R charged into Buttonwillow's 90-degree Sunset corner in 5th gear at 130 mph. That's a solid 8 mph faster than the 2011 model we drove back to back on the same track.
And then, thanks to larger 15.4-inch front rotors (previously 15.0 inches) and redesigned calipers, it hauled down to a reasonable 80 mph before once again crushing our soul with relentless acceleration. There's more than enough power here to balance the GT-R's chassis with the throttle, and understeer is noticeably reduced at lower speeds while stability remains high in triple-digit corners.
The chassis feels largely the same. There's the same heavyweight steering — even at low speed. There's the same sense that you're managing a lot of mass every time you ask the GT-R to accelerate, brake or turn. And there's the same confidence when opening the throttle at corner exit. Only one thing is different: There's more of everything. And it is good.
By the Numbers
Uphill, downhill, the GT-R is fast both ways.
According to our test equipment, the 2012 GT-R is both quicker and faster than the car it replaces. It hit 60 in 3.1 seconds (2.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and stomped through the quarter-mile in 11.1 seconds at 124.1 mph.
We've tested multiple GT-Rs in the three years since the car's introduction and the best acceleration we've recorded to date came from our long-term test car with the VDC switched off. It hit 60 mph in 3.6 seconds (3.3 seconds with a 1-foot rollout) and completed the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at 118.9 mph.
For perspective, the last Porsche 911 Turbo we tested hit 60 in 3.2 seconds and finished the quarter-mile in 11.1 seconds at 125.4 mph. Chevy's insane Corvette ZR1 wasn't as quick in our last test. It needed 3.9 seconds to hit 60 and 11.7 seconds to complete the quarter-mile (at 126.7 mph).
Handling numbers are similarly improved. The GT-R stormed through the slalom cones fast enough to rival the record for production cars at Inside Line. Its 74.7-mph speed with its VDC disabled was impressive, but it still managed 74.2 mph with VDC active. Porsche's GT3 and GT3 RS hold the record at 75.3 mph.
The GT-R generates 1.02g of cornering force with VDC off — a stunning number considering its relative tire size and substantial weight (3,888 pounds). Switch the electronics back on and it's still good for a very solid 1.0g performance.
Dunlop developed the GT-R's proprietary tire — the SP Sport Maxx GT600 (255/40ZRF20 front, 285/35ZRF20 rear) — with Nissan. The 522-pound-lighter Corvette ZR1, which packs around 285mm front and 335mm section-width rear rubber, yields the same lateral grip at 1.02g.
Braking from 60 to zero requires 108 feet — a few feet more than most of its competition.
The Critical Tweaks
The six-spoke Rays wheels cut an additional 3.5 pounds per car from the stock wheels.
The transformational difference here is engine output, which climbs from 485 hp to 530 and 434 pound-feet to 448. Primarily, this is achieved via a bump in peak boost pressure from 10.9 psi to 13.1 psi. Valve timing has also been adjusted, while intake and exhaust flow are both improved. Better flow through the radiator also adds a measure of thermal efficiency to handle the additional power.
But Mizuno isn't all about power. He's a handling guy and his changes to the GT-R's suspension are not insubstantial. The front spring/damper assembly now mounts further outboard on the lower control arm, which changes the suspension's lever ratio. Caster is increased from 5 to 6 degrees to improve high-speed stability. Even the rear suspension's roll center was lowered. All four dampers now utilize an aluminum piston (previously plastic), which ensures that they function as designed during the high loads the car generates in places like, well, the Nürburgring, where development continued for this model.
There are two new structural braces — one carbon-composite brace mounted along the firewall between the shock towers and another dashboard-support member which is part of the car's body structure and is oriented vertically on the inside of the firewall. Even the stock wheels — now 10-spokers — are 20 percent stiffer and 6.6 pounds (per car, not per wheel) lighter. The Rays six-spoke wheels that come as part of the Black Edition scrub another 3.5 pounds (per car).
Subtle but effective changes to the body resonate both in the wind tunnel and on the track. A redesigned front bumper directs more air around the side of the car — improving brake cooling efficiency and eliminating some airflow over the hood and roof. This results in a 10-percent increase in downforce and yields a marginally better drag coefficient (0.27 to 0.26).
The front grille opening is slightly larger on the 2012 GT-R.
By Josh Jacquot, Senior Editor | Published Feb 2, 2011
Perhaps you remember the original Nissan GT-R as easy to drive but uninvolving. You might have surmised that, like a digital coffee maker or fancy toaster, it got the job done but lacked personality. Maybe you even read enough Internet forums to convince yourself that it was an appliance — warmed over electro-mechanics turned into speed. Technology, you probably concluded, can be so dull. Yawn.
Kazutoshi Mizuno, chief engineer for the R35, is fed up with that attitude. And he's delivered the revised 2012 Nissan GT-R with enough capability — in the way of 45 additional horsepower, bigger front brake rotors and refined suspension tuning — to extinguish your inner bench racer's technological indifference. Anyone who's still singing that tune, Mizuno thinks, hasn't driven this car.
But we have.
Reality Check
Winter is a good time to attack a California back road in the GT-R.
And what we've learned during our instrumented performance testing and numerous laps around California's Buttonwillow Raceway is convincing. The GT-R, no doubt about it, is a full-fledged and wildly capable supercar. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Certainly, there's a measure of control here that's not available in other cars with this much (or more) power, but let's not mistake control for blandness. Because, in this case, there's nothing bland about the GT-R.
You see, even in this business, where 500-hp cars come along every few weeks, the speed and control that accompany the GT-R driving experience are rare. Even more rare, however, are drivers with the ability to effectively use this much power.
Every manufacturer recognizes this. It's why Chevy offers Performance Traction Management on its 638-hp Corvette ZR1. It's why Mercedes-Benz won't allow stability control to be fully disabled on its most powerful models. And it's why the Nissan GT-R, in all its torque-biasing, electronically controlled glory, exists at all.
Because control, friends, kicks ***. Like it or not.
Just Plain Silly Fast
This carbon brace adds strength to the body.
And we won't pretend to be the driver who can handle this car unencumbered by electronic aids on a mostly wet track. So we left them on around the road course. And despite the moisture, the 530-hp 2012 GT-R charged into Buttonwillow's 90-degree Sunset corner in 5th gear at 130 mph. That's a solid 8 mph faster than the 2011 model we drove back to back on the same track.
And then, thanks to larger 15.4-inch front rotors (previously 15.0 inches) and redesigned calipers, it hauled down to a reasonable 80 mph before once again crushing our soul with relentless acceleration. There's more than enough power here to balance the GT-R's chassis with the throttle, and understeer is noticeably reduced at lower speeds while stability remains high in triple-digit corners.
The chassis feels largely the same. There's the same heavyweight steering — even at low speed. There's the same sense that you're managing a lot of mass every time you ask the GT-R to accelerate, brake or turn. And there's the same confidence when opening the throttle at corner exit. Only one thing is different: There's more of everything. And it is good.
By the Numbers
Uphill, downhill, the GT-R is fast both ways.
According to our test equipment, the 2012 GT-R is both quicker and faster than the car it replaces. It hit 60 in 3.1 seconds (2.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and stomped through the quarter-mile in 11.1 seconds at 124.1 mph.
We've tested multiple GT-Rs in the three years since the car's introduction and the best acceleration we've recorded to date came from our long-term test car with the VDC switched off. It hit 60 mph in 3.6 seconds (3.3 seconds with a 1-foot rollout) and completed the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at 118.9 mph.
For perspective, the last Porsche 911 Turbo we tested hit 60 in 3.2 seconds and finished the quarter-mile in 11.1 seconds at 125.4 mph. Chevy's insane Corvette ZR1 wasn't as quick in our last test. It needed 3.9 seconds to hit 60 and 11.7 seconds to complete the quarter-mile (at 126.7 mph).
Handling numbers are similarly improved. The GT-R stormed through the slalom cones fast enough to rival the record for production cars at Inside Line. Its 74.7-mph speed with its VDC disabled was impressive, but it still managed 74.2 mph with VDC active. Porsche's GT3 and GT3 RS hold the record at 75.3 mph.
The GT-R generates 1.02g of cornering force with VDC off — a stunning number considering its relative tire size and substantial weight (3,888 pounds). Switch the electronics back on and it's still good for a very solid 1.0g performance.
Dunlop developed the GT-R's proprietary tire — the SP Sport Maxx GT600 (255/40ZRF20 front, 285/35ZRF20 rear) — with Nissan. The 522-pound-lighter Corvette ZR1, which packs around 285mm front and 335mm section-width rear rubber, yields the same lateral grip at 1.02g.
Braking from 60 to zero requires 108 feet — a few feet more than most of its competition.
The Critical Tweaks
The six-spoke Rays wheels cut an additional 3.5 pounds per car from the stock wheels.
The transformational difference here is engine output, which climbs from 485 hp to 530 and 434 pound-feet to 448. Primarily, this is achieved via a bump in peak boost pressure from 10.9 psi to 13.1 psi. Valve timing has also been adjusted, while intake and exhaust flow are both improved. Better flow through the radiator also adds a measure of thermal efficiency to handle the additional power.
But Mizuno isn't all about power. He's a handling guy and his changes to the GT-R's suspension are not insubstantial. The front spring/damper assembly now mounts further outboard on the lower control arm, which changes the suspension's lever ratio. Caster is increased from 5 to 6 degrees to improve high-speed stability. Even the rear suspension's roll center was lowered. All four dampers now utilize an aluminum piston (previously plastic), which ensures that they function as designed during the high loads the car generates in places like, well, the Nürburgring, where development continued for this model.
There are two new structural braces — one carbon-composite brace mounted along the firewall between the shock towers and another dashboard-support member which is part of the car's body structure and is oriented vertically on the inside of the firewall. Even the stock wheels — now 10-spokers — are 20 percent stiffer and 6.6 pounds (per car, not per wheel) lighter. The Rays six-spoke wheels that come as part of the Black Edition scrub another 3.5 pounds (per car).
Subtle but effective changes to the body resonate both in the wind tunnel and on the track. A redesigned front bumper directs more air around the side of the car — improving brake cooling efficiency and eliminating some airflow over the hood and roof. This results in a 10-percent increase in downforce and yields a marginally better drag coefficient (0.27 to 0.26).
02-05-2011, 02:10 PM
#2
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't Call It Launch Control
R mode still illuminates the setup switches in red. "Save" mode replaces "Snow" mode on the transmission setup switch.
The six-speed dual-clutch transmission is mechanically identical but benefits from reprogramming to increase shift speed in R mode and smooth shifting in normal mode. R-Mode Start, or Nissan's name for launch control, remains functionally the same as in 2011 GT-Rs. Bump the transmission and VDC setup switches into the R position (the suspension switch can remain in the "normal" position), then pin the brake, wood the throttle and release the brake.
It's that simple, and the result is more like the 2009 cars before the reflash: The engine revs quickly to about 4,000 rpm and when the brake is released there's an honest clutch drop, which results in wheelspin if the tires are cold. Still, because the feature is easy and quick to activate, it's a genuine Corvette-killing weapon for those not accustomed to launching a 530-hp supercar. And, really, who is?
Power is fed rapidly to the front wheels and rear wheelspin ends almost immediately. Unlike in the original 2009 GT-R, VDC always remains on — a measure Mizuno says was taken to ensure safety if the car is launched with one tire on a slippery surface. There's another change, too: 2012 GT-Rs are limited to four launches in a row before the system requires a 1.5-mile cool-down drive.
The Critical Test
It takes a true Nissan Nerd to notice the differences between a 2011 and 2012 GT-R.
That the 2012 GT-R is insanely, stupidly fast is evident. But perhaps more impressive are the new fuel economy numbers that accompany the increased speed. City fuel economy jumps from 15 mpg to 16 mpg, while both highway and combined numbers see a 2-mpg increase (21 to 23 mpg and 17 to 19 mpg, respectively).
Largely, this is due to the same engine recalibration that yields the additional power. It also substantially improves combustion efficiency, according to Mizuno. Also, replacing the "Snow" mode on the transmission setup switch is "Save" mode, which utilizes a different shift map to save fuel during long-distance driving.
Unsurprisingly, all these changes aren't free. Our test car, a Black Edition, which includes the six-spoke Rays wheels and unique Recaro seats with red inserts, will set you back $96,100. A Premium GT-R (there is no base model) costs $90,950 — about $5,900 more than a 2011 Premium model.
The real question however, isn't the GT-R's price tag, which has always been far below that of the cars with which it competes. Rather, it's the experience, which is more accessible and comes with less risk than all of those cars. To our minds, the GT-R will not only give its German, Italian and American competition an honest run in any performance test, but it's every bit as engaging as well.
Mizuno, we'd guess, would agree.
What Works (pros): Fully engaging, insane power, ludicrous speed, (relatively) easy to drive
What Needs Work (cons): Still a bit stiff for a daily driver.
Bottom Line: Both insanely rapid and fully engaging, the 2012 GT-R again lives up to the hype.
Track Test Results
0-30 mph (sec.) 1.4
0-45 mph (sec.) 2.1
0-60 mph (sec.) 3.1
0-75 mph (sec.) 4.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 11.1 @ 124.1
30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 108
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 74.7
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 1.02
Acceleration Comments - Traction at launch is critical to an optimal run. This car easily spins all four tires even in Launch mode, especially on this surface with tires set to "door-post" pressures (rather than lower in rear as Nissan suggested). I had to progressively brake-release/launch rpm from 4,400 (steady) down to 3,500 (releasing brake while needle is swinging past it). Also, had to request 1-2 shift at 6,000 rpm because the tachometer doesn't keep pace with engine speed. The 2-3 shift as the shift light changes from amber to red worked just fine. (I tried not to shift to 4th, but was afraid I'd hit the limiter at the finish line so I usually did. Close data analysis will tell us if I needed to.) Gob-smackingly fast and smooth shifts in R.
Braking Comments - Needed five stops to find best/shortest stop. The anomalous fourth stop (115 feet with a squishy pedal and locked-up tires) was somewhat expected because the brake system was bled only the day before. The next stop was the best where the pedal was very firm, and this was maintained throughout the stop. Arrow-straight and zero dive (in R, R, R).
Handling Comments - Skid pad: With ESC off (R, R, Off), I could sneak up on very mild understeer, but I wasn't able to "drive through it" with the typical lift-stab at the throttle to coax rotation. Still, tremendous grip and poise, steering with throttle pedal alone. With ESC on, in (R, R, R) it felt very similar, but the understeer seemed to come on slightly earlier, couldn't really detect anything being trimmed or closed. Either mode, steering delivers volumes of info regarding front tire grip and impending slide. Appropriate weight and delicacy. Slalom: With ESC on (R, R, R), the car turns in very crisply/immediately and sets up immediately. Alert and ready for attack right from the first gate. However, there seems to be a slight delay-gain for the remaining cones, not what I'd ever call unpredictable or something that causes it to get "late," but it was different from the first set. Even with suspension in R, the GTR didn't even once acknowledge the dip at near the third cone. I fought with a little understeer at the exit, but mashing the throttle seems to help. With ESC off (R, R, Off), I could tell it didn't turn in quite as well, but it worked better everywhere else where I could rotate the car at will with the throttle and really attack the exit at WOT. Overall, this is almost too easy to do. This is still amazing technology made even better for this year
R mode still illuminates the setup switches in red. "Save" mode replaces "Snow" mode on the transmission setup switch.
The six-speed dual-clutch transmission is mechanically identical but benefits from reprogramming to increase shift speed in R mode and smooth shifting in normal mode. R-Mode Start, or Nissan's name for launch control, remains functionally the same as in 2011 GT-Rs. Bump the transmission and VDC setup switches into the R position (the suspension switch can remain in the "normal" position), then pin the brake, wood the throttle and release the brake.
It's that simple, and the result is more like the 2009 cars before the reflash: The engine revs quickly to about 4,000 rpm and when the brake is released there's an honest clutch drop, which results in wheelspin if the tires are cold. Still, because the feature is easy and quick to activate, it's a genuine Corvette-killing weapon for those not accustomed to launching a 530-hp supercar. And, really, who is?
Power is fed rapidly to the front wheels and rear wheelspin ends almost immediately. Unlike in the original 2009 GT-R, VDC always remains on — a measure Mizuno says was taken to ensure safety if the car is launched with one tire on a slippery surface. There's another change, too: 2012 GT-Rs are limited to four launches in a row before the system requires a 1.5-mile cool-down drive.
The Critical Test
It takes a true Nissan Nerd to notice the differences between a 2011 and 2012 GT-R.
That the 2012 GT-R is insanely, stupidly fast is evident. But perhaps more impressive are the new fuel economy numbers that accompany the increased speed. City fuel economy jumps from 15 mpg to 16 mpg, while both highway and combined numbers see a 2-mpg increase (21 to 23 mpg and 17 to 19 mpg, respectively).
Largely, this is due to the same engine recalibration that yields the additional power. It also substantially improves combustion efficiency, according to Mizuno. Also, replacing the "Snow" mode on the transmission setup switch is "Save" mode, which utilizes a different shift map to save fuel during long-distance driving.
Unsurprisingly, all these changes aren't free. Our test car, a Black Edition, which includes the six-spoke Rays wheels and unique Recaro seats with red inserts, will set you back $96,100. A Premium GT-R (there is no base model) costs $90,950 — about $5,900 more than a 2011 Premium model.
The real question however, isn't the GT-R's price tag, which has always been far below that of the cars with which it competes. Rather, it's the experience, which is more accessible and comes with less risk than all of those cars. To our minds, the GT-R will not only give its German, Italian and American competition an honest run in any performance test, but it's every bit as engaging as well.
Mizuno, we'd guess, would agree.
What Works (pros): Fully engaging, insane power, ludicrous speed, (relatively) easy to drive
What Needs Work (cons): Still a bit stiff for a daily driver.
Bottom Line: Both insanely rapid and fully engaging, the 2012 GT-R again lives up to the hype.
Track Test Results
0-30 mph (sec.) 1.4
0-45 mph (sec.) 2.1
0-60 mph (sec.) 3.1
0-75 mph (sec.) 4.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 11.1 @ 124.1
30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 108
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 74.7
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 1.02
Acceleration Comments - Traction at launch is critical to an optimal run. This car easily spins all four tires even in Launch mode, especially on this surface with tires set to "door-post" pressures (rather than lower in rear as Nissan suggested). I had to progressively brake-release/launch rpm from 4,400 (steady) down to 3,500 (releasing brake while needle is swinging past it). Also, had to request 1-2 shift at 6,000 rpm because the tachometer doesn't keep pace with engine speed. The 2-3 shift as the shift light changes from amber to red worked just fine. (I tried not to shift to 4th, but was afraid I'd hit the limiter at the finish line so I usually did. Close data analysis will tell us if I needed to.) Gob-smackingly fast and smooth shifts in R.
Braking Comments - Needed five stops to find best/shortest stop. The anomalous fourth stop (115 feet with a squishy pedal and locked-up tires) was somewhat expected because the brake system was bled only the day before. The next stop was the best where the pedal was very firm, and this was maintained throughout the stop. Arrow-straight and zero dive (in R, R, R).
Handling Comments - Skid pad: With ESC off (R, R, Off), I could sneak up on very mild understeer, but I wasn't able to "drive through it" with the typical lift-stab at the throttle to coax rotation. Still, tremendous grip and poise, steering with throttle pedal alone. With ESC on, in (R, R, R) it felt very similar, but the understeer seemed to come on slightly earlier, couldn't really detect anything being trimmed or closed. Either mode, steering delivers volumes of info regarding front tire grip and impending slide. Appropriate weight and delicacy. Slalom: With ESC on (R, R, R), the car turns in very crisply/immediately and sets up immediately. Alert and ready for attack right from the first gate. However, there seems to be a slight delay-gain for the remaining cones, not what I'd ever call unpredictable or something that causes it to get "late," but it was different from the first set. Even with suspension in R, the GTR didn't even once acknowledge the dip at near the third cone. I fought with a little understeer at the exit, but mashing the throttle seems to help. With ESC off (R, R, Off), I could tell it didn't turn in quite as well, but it worked better everywhere else where I could rotate the car at will with the throttle and really attack the exit at WOT. Overall, this is almost too easy to do. This is still amazing technology made even better for this year
02-05-2011, 02:11 PM
#3
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a glance, the 2012 Nissan GT-R is a dead ringer for the outgoing model. Our full test of the 2012 GT-R suggests otherwise. So do our dyno results.
When rumblings of the 2009 Nissan GT-R's performance first came about in late 2007, the armchair quarterbacking that ensued was immediate and intense. Every keyboard warrior in North America manned a battle station in their parents' basement, some proclaiming the GT-R a cheater, a fake, even a failure.
Among the speculation were claims that the 2009 GT-R's 480-hp output was underrated. Our dyno test results suggested otherwise, as the 480-hp Nissan produced exactly the same peak power as a 480-hp Porsche 911 Turbo. If Nissan was lying about its claimed output then so was Porsche.
Fast forward to today. Nissan pegs the 2012 GT-R's output at 530 horsepower, an increase of 50 horsepower over the 2009 model (45 more than the 485-hp 2010 GT-R). If that's not a good enough excuse to make another trip to the dyno, then one doesn't exist.
Being an all wheel-drive car, we couldn't test the 2012 GT-R on our usual Dynojet chassis dyno. Instead we ventured to GMG Racing in Santa Ana, California, which has a Mustang 4WD dyno situated in a soundproof cell. This is the very same dyno, in fact, that we used in the aforementioned dyno test of the JDM 2009 GT-R.
After seven nearly identical runs on the dyno with the 2012 GT-R, we called it a day. Here's the final, stabilized result:
Maximum torque of 397 lb-ft arrived at 4900 rpm, while peak power of 430 horsepower was observed at 6500 rpm. The GT-R's twin-turbo 3.8-liter V6 is a husky thing, churning out more than 350 lb-ft to the wheels from 2900 to 6400 rpm.
Time for some perspective. GMG has tested several GT-Rs on this dyno, and here's how the 2012 GT-R compares to an average box-stock 2009 GT-R plucked from their library:
The new car diverges from the 2009 model from as low as 2600 rpm and never looks back. Peak torque rises by 17 lb-ft from the 2009 GT-R's 380 lb-ft while power swells by 44 horsepower over the old car's maximum of 386 horsepower.
So the gains are real, and they span nearly the entire rev range. According to Nissan the improvements stem from reduced exhaust backpressure, revised cam mapping, improved cooling flow through the intercoolers and an increase in boost pressure.
Oddly enough, in our testing the 2012 GT-R ran no more boost than the 2009 car (see chart; above right). The reason is likely octane. More accurately, a lack of it. California's 91 octane "premium" fuel limits the aggressiveness of the car's boost and ignition calibrations. Put real fuel like the crazy stuff you Midwesterners get at the pump (93 or -- joy of joys -- 94 octane) in the 2012 GT-R and expect to see the boost and output increase further.
Last thing to keep in mind while perusing these dyno results -- Mustang dynos generally produce lower absolute numbers than Dynojets or Dynapack dynos. Comparing results across dynos is like comparing apples to kumquats. Focus on the gains.
02-05-2011, 11:20 PM
#6
You need to open your eyes and look around my friend.... There is more to life than an LSX. (And an '87 G-body is a bona-fide POS even with a 3.8) Technology marches on.... That was then.... This is today.
Trending Topics
02-06-2011, 12:00 AM
#9
02-06-2011, 04:26 AM
#10
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Here and sometimes there too.
Posts: 13,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...When rumblings of the 2009 Nissan GT-R's performance first came about in late 2007, the armchair quarterbacking that ensued was immediate and intense. Every keyboard warrior in North America manned a battle station in their parents' basement, some proclaiming the GT-R a cheater, a fake, even a failure.
Among the speculation were claims that the 2009 GT-R's 480-hp output was underrated. Our dyno test results suggested otherwise, as the 480-hp Nissan produced exactly the same peak power as a 480-hp Porsche 911 Turbo. If Nissan was lying about its claimed output then so was Porsche.
Among the speculation were claims that the 2009 GT-R's 480-hp output was underrated. Our dyno test results suggested otherwise, as the 480-hp Nissan produced exactly the same peak power as a 480-hp Porsche 911 Turbo. If Nissan was lying about its claimed output then so was Porsche.
I'd love to drive one one day.
02-06-2011, 12:01 PM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: middle of nowhere, IL
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WITH A BACK SEAT...... I've never been in one but standing next to one really made me appreciate the magnitude and impact of this car.
You need to open your eyes and look around my friend.... There is more to life than an LSX. (And an '87 G-body is a bona-fide POS even with a 3.8) Technology marches on.... That was then.... This is today.
You need to open your eyes and look around my friend.... There is more to life than an LSX. (And an '87 G-body is a bona-fide POS even with a 3.8) Technology marches on.... That was then.... This is today.
I'm not doubting the performance or calling the build quality into question, its just ugly in my opinion. I should hope technology marches on....and a $95,000 Nissan better make my 25 year old G-body look like a POS.
02-06-2011, 10:10 PM
#12
Dude, calm the hell down. First, I never once said that LSX cars were the only thing out there, and way to call out my G-body (which has nothing to do with this either) All I said was regardless of how the GT-R performs, I think its ugly. I buy cars that appeal to me, for whatever reason I choose to use them for (not because some magazine writer tells me its cool). Are there better cars that my 10 year old F-body, sure, but for under $10K, maybe not.
I'm not doubting the performance or calling the build quality into question, its just ugly in my opinion. I should hope technology marches on....and a $95,000 Nissan better make my 25 year old G-body look like a POS.
I'm not doubting the performance or calling the build quality into question, its just ugly in my opinion. I should hope technology marches on....and a $95,000 Nissan better make my 25 year old G-body look like a POS.
I have also owned my fair share of f-bods (including a TTA) as well as quite a few G bod turbo cars (GNX 441 too...)
How about giving a little credit where it is due (in this case to the chubby guy that can dance his *** off...) give the car some time in your garage and its "ugliness" may grow on you the way your leaky rear mains do....lol.
Do you like the CTS-v station wagon?
02-07-2011, 12:48 AM
#14
True, according to their tests at least.
I personally would need to see the Nissan run a 10.7 second 1/4 mile at over 133+mph first though before I'll agree that it can actually beat a ZR1 in a straight line.
Good description, the car certainly is a strong performer but damn is it heavy (and costly). 
Even at nearly 3900 pounds, they did somehow manage to improve it's 'less than great' fuel economy ever so slightly which is good.
I personally would need to see the Nissan run a 10.7 second 1/4 mile at over 133+mph first though before I'll agree that it can actually beat a ZR1 in a straight line.
Good description, the car certainly is a strong performer but damn is it heavy (and costly). Even at nearly 3900 pounds, they did somehow manage to improve it's 'less than great' fuel economy ever so slightly which is good.
02-07-2011, 07:34 AM
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: middle of nowhere, IL
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not riled up---- just don't like it when comments like yours are made.
I have also owned my fair share of f-bods (including a TTA) as well as quite a few G bod turbo cars (GNX 441 too...)
How about giving a little credit where it is due (in this case to the chubby guy that can dance his *** off...) give the car some time in your garage and its "ugliness" may grow on you the way your leaky rear mains do....lol.
Do you like the CTS-v station wagon?
I have also owned my fair share of f-bods (including a TTA) as well as quite a few G bod turbo cars (GNX 441 too...)
How about giving a little credit where it is due (in this case to the chubby guy that can dance his *** off...) give the car some time in your garage and its "ugliness" may grow on you the way your leaky rear mains do....lol.
Do you like the CTS-v station wagon?
On to your next point, I do like the CTS-V wagon, I think it works with the rigid lines and sharp angles. I like the sedan as well....the coupe is slightly starting to grow on me.
I understand there's an *** for every seat and some people wouldn't have anything else. But if I had to have a sports car with a rear seat and didn't care about pissing away $100K or more, I'd look to a DB9, Ferrari 612 (or the Maserati eqivalent) Yes, I understand it wouldn't be brand new, but those cars just **** excellence.
02-07-2011, 09:14 AM
#18
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would pay the maintenance costs on a zr-1 vs what it costs to maintain a GTR any day. I've heard owners say it's more economical to keep a ferrari running.
02-07-2011, 11:05 AM
#19
Still wouldn't own one. It's a sin to be that ugly. If buying an expensive car like that, it better check every box.....the GTR does not.
Also, magazines can say the GTR is faster than the ZR1 all they want, but it comes down to their lack of skill. When real drivers get behind the wheel of a ZR1, it fairs much better. In everyday life, sure, a majority of people will get the GTR around a track faster. Just think they should mention something like that.
Also, magazines can say the GTR is faster than the ZR1 all they want, but it comes down to their lack of skill. When real drivers get behind the wheel of a ZR1, it fairs much better. In everyday life, sure, a majority of people will get the GTR around a track faster. Just think they should mention something like that.
02-07-2011, 12:35 PM
#20
I gave credit to its performance aspects, but I just don't agree with Nissan's design team, everything they make looks terrible to me. That car would never have time in my garage, mainly because I think its absolutely retarded to spend that kind of money on a car, regardless of who makes it. My rear main seal doesn't leak either
On to your next point, I do like the CTS-V wagon, I think it works with the rigid lines and sharp angles. I like the sedan as well....the coupe is slightly starting to grow on me.
I understand there's an *** for every seat and some people wouldn't have anything else. But if I had to have a sports car with a rear seat and didn't care about pissing away $100K or more, I'd look to a DB9, Ferrari 612 (or the Maserati eqivalent) Yes, I understand it wouldn't be brand new, but those cars just **** excellence.
On to your next point, I do like the CTS-V wagon, I think it works with the rigid lines and sharp angles. I like the sedan as well....the coupe is slightly starting to grow on me.
I understand there's an *** for every seat and some people wouldn't have anything else. But if I had to have a sports car with a rear seat and didn't care about pissing away $100K or more, I'd look to a DB9, Ferrari 612 (or the Maserati eqivalent) Yes, I understand it wouldn't be brand new, but those cars just **** excellence.
I'll keep driving my $9900 evo WITH the back seat and wait 'till the wag-o-v's start going out of warranty and coming off lease.... I will own one even though I think it's UGLY.... Holy horsepower batman.
