bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

Japan makes wonderful cars that do such amazing things, but not since Mazda (for a few years) have I seen them enter the Le Mans with these amazing sports cars...

The Corvette, Viper, and 911 are really GT's no one can talk **** about... These cars have paid their dues on the WORLD ARENA... Nissan makes nice sports cars, as do others, but they have not been put to the test like this.



Oh and here:

There are only two cars listed there!

That would be like listing every generation of Camaro and Vette for GM.

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

While I agree with the idea that technology and forced induction can sometimes compensate for a lack of displacement, you cannot say it's nearly irrelevant.

A four/six cylinder, hell even our GM LSX's, cannot make the peak power of a 500+ cubic inch big block with forced induction.

Remember, these (LSX V8's, RB26, 4G63, etc.) are all mass-produced blocks. It's an engineering miracle that they can even do what they do, but they are ALL limited in terms of displacement, actually.

So it is relevant... displacement, compression, fuel type, nitrous, boost, head flow, cam profile, etc.

Crank up as many of those as you can to make the most power, but no one makes another irrelevant, viz. boosting a small DOHC doesn't make increased displacement a lesser approach.

Fact is the most powerful motors have it ALL (crazy fuels, cubic inches, boost, etc.), so it's obviously all very relevant.

I digress, for the mass produced motors we are discussing we should consider weight of the motor vs. output.

For example's sake, a 500 lb. V8 w/ 500 rwhp in a 3000 lb car goes just as fast around a road course...

As a 500 lb. V6-TT w/ 500 rwhp in a 3000 lb car.


Again, peak power can be had with any motor by any drag racer with money on ANY of these motors... What's the point?

Anybody know what this motor weighs? Then maybe we can figure out how impressive this motor really is... What makes the LS7 really impressive is that it can offer a car 500hp with an NA powerband in a motor that doesn't weigh ****.

This is the kind of **** that impresses me.


BTW, the 4G63 is one of the most impressive engine blocks with which the world has been graced.

OKcruising

22k for the trans? That can get a deec hewland sequantial.
I wonder who the poor guinea pig is going to be breaking a stock box?

nanokpsi

I checked again and its only 14k. I'll edit

nanokpsi

Your are absolutely correct, but you have taken my comments out of context. I was replying to your "not much room for growth" aspect. It could be my error though, as I didn't take your comments to mean "to bad it doesn't have a mountain motor in it"

For all typical street engines, the power is going to be limited by the size of the compressor(s) more so than displacement. That is all my point was.

I am sort of fond of the 4g63 as well. Heck, it tought me how to work on cars

It's a shame that this car is going to be so limited production wise. I had always planned on picking one up that was a couple years old. I am hooked on turbos now, and with how much power all my prospective toys would make, I would have to roll around on bias ply's to have any fun. AWD helps with that part.

GMmexican

iTrader: (7)

2 bad hondas are still out there giving the true tuners a bad name lol

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

WOW... - please do research -

They aren't sequential so that statement is worthless and inaccurate.
And what factory car has had bottleneck issues with twin turbo's, sequential or not.

-please do research

Pretty ignorant comment...would you mind explaining that one in more detail? I would presume no...

-please do research

That is a moronic and uneducated statement. I'm assuming you've done NO research or reading up on this vehicle to make such a comment. And if you have how would you explain that it held the unofficial record as the fastest stock production car ever to lap the Nurburgring?? I guess the Nurburgring is not much of a road course right? considering the only production vehicle to eclipse the GT-R's time at the Nurburgring is the $445,000 Porsche Carrera GT. Yeah it's definitely not a road racing car, good point.
And what racing heritage do you bring to claim that "the key to victory is a smooth, consistent delivery of power"?? Have you ever seen the dyno sheet of a Formula 1 car? Based on that statement it's evident that you have not!

Oh and I'm glad you think a 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds is "poor boost load from idle"...Actually, what is "poor boost load from idle" and how in the world do you figure putting a larger turbine is gonna help... "poor boost load from idle"?

-please do research

I'd be hard pressed to believe that Nissan execs and engineers spend years of R & D trying to prefect a dyno queen good for only impressing people. There's a reason why many are considering this car to "take the title of best value supercar from the C6 Z06" (edmunds.com) That is unless you consider the Z06 a car only good for "making numbers on dynos, taking up weight and room, and impressing people."


-please do research

On the first part of that statement. Please write to Porsche, Audi, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Nissan and tell them to quit making AWD sports and rally cars because they are dogs to launch!
AND ...
on your take on what the Japanese tuning mindset is as well as what American tuning mindset supposedly is.

-please do research

I understand what points your trying to make but it's clear you do not know what your talking about when claiming the things you do with this vehicle...or any vehicle for that manner.

-please do research

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I'm gonna leave this one alone...I don't have enough time to do all the research for you...

- please do research.

WECIV

Eek!!!

W

turbo

iTrader: (10)

Right on...

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

Wow, the tone here is uncalled for IMO...


Okay, things like RPM/gearing nullify any disadvantage thought to be had in a peaky powerband in the world of racing...

But let's make sure we don't throw "area under the curve" out the window because ultimately what we want on the street is a car that moves along nicely at many areas of RPM, not just when racing... Right?

Hydramatic

Do research? What is this a term paper? I never intended my comments to be taken as encyclopedic gospel, just generalizations about the way things work, PAL.

If I'm completely wrong, then explain the how the Supra, Evolution, and GTR-32/33/34 are all handicapped by their turbine system? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

Now, tell me, if TT 6-bangers are so nice and perfect, like you apparantly seem to think...why would a V8 making the same power but with a constant powerband hooked up to the same drivetrain kick the sixes' ***? I guarantee you a V8 hooked up to the GT-R's drivetrain making the same power but without the (although minimal) turbo lag and drop off between turbos would be superior in every way. Nissan should've put the VK45 in there and been done with it, like the Top Secret special model...

I'll finish this later when I get home from work...

RedBeauty84ZX

I think you need to explain what yuo mean by handicapped because most of us are not understanding what you mean. A turbo is a way to theoretically increase displacement....on a 3.0L running 14.7PSI you are in theory displacing the same volume of air/fuel as a 6.0L engine. Granted its not 100% efficient but it is pretty close. The turbos are not a bottle neck, sure if you want MONSTER power you have to upgrade the turbos, but the factory turbos are still capable of putting out a LOT more power then the stock power output. Its also cheaper to upgrade turbos then it is to build a high compression NA engine....

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

I think what he means is that those set-ups are not reliable enough for world-class GT racing, generally speaking... Yes, they work in the JGTC and Japanese leagues. But would they work in the 24 hours of Le Mans? All of them would?

Even FI set-ups on V8's don't work that well either on the most grueling set-ups.


The only place where an small-displacement turbo-charged motor works in grueling competition (NOT a couple of seconds of drag racing!) is WRC... But they do change MANY components often, inclusing burned and trashed turbos because of anti-lag.

I think that's what he meant, but I'm not sure.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

It wasn't my intention to flame, so I apologize if my tone was uncalled for. But alot of his statements carry no weight and it is evident he does not know what he is talking about. If he did any research or knew anything about engines his bold statements would of carried a little more value.

Yeah absolutely, on the street we want as much of it as possible in all area's of the powerband. But his statement was "the key to victory is a smooth, consistent delivery of power". That is just broad statement and yes ignorant. Different racing required different power to be delivered at different times and gearing as you stated is a big part of how and when that power comes on. And any graph can be made to look peaky depending on how you scale the x-axis.

dailydriver

VERY true. Also, in the WRC, the actual all out stages are very short (usually < 20-25 miles) with longer transit stages driven at street legal speeds giving engines/turbos/components time to cool down without the stress of competition.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

How old are you?? Term paper? Why do you think your asked to do research papers in school? Maybe it's so you have some sort of understanding of the things your are trying to say. I didn't take anything you said as encyclopedic gospel...it's just incorrect and your generalizations are just uneducated. V-8 power is not the holey gospel of power...sorry.

Like I mentioned numerous times...do your OWN research. I'm not here to explain to you why you think "the Supra, Evolution, and GTR-32/33/34 are all handicapped by their turbine system" which is something you probably heard from an anti-import moron who knows absolutely nothing about those cars...and now your here repeating it, claiming it as your own. How bout you go find the answer to that question and come back and let us know how they AREN'T in fact handicapped by their turbo's.

PS I'll give you a hint...find out the specs of the stock turbo's and find out what they are rated for and where their peak efficiency lies and tell me if the vehicle operates within that range.


That by far is THE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT you could of made! I'll let you in on a secret.
RedBeauty84ZX touched on this point a little but I will elaborate on it just for you. The statement "There is no replacement for displacement" was a termed coined in the 60's and 70's during the muscle car era when most cars were N/A and it's technology was at it's infancy. In today's FI + Nitrous + alternative fuels era that statement no longer holds as much weight. The only fool proof measuring stick for making power, on any displacement engine with any amount of cylinders is how much fuel can you burn per combustion stroke. (notice the period is in bold...for emphasis )
A 2L engine can make THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER as a 6L engine can make. Is it as easy...NO but is it true YES!

I'm gonna tell you something that will probably shock 90 percent of the people on here. A properly build N/A 3L engine can produce more hp than your typical fully built N/A 7.0L LS7. As a matter of fact you can make more with that same 3L than you could with a bored out 4xx ci LSX block.

The bigger you make your engine the more mass you're required to move around and the slower you can spin your engine. The smaller the engine the less mass your required to move and the faster you can spin it. I'm tempted to get into a physics lesson here but I have a feeling you slept through that class and would be wasting my breath. But as a rough example, if you spin a 3L engine at 10K rpm's your gonna make the same power as a 6L engine at 5K rpm's.

To prove my point and help you understanding this better here is a quote from an article on F1 engines written by Car and Driver (research is priceless)...

"The modern Formula 1 engine is an incredible beast with a spec sheet that makes car geeks like me queasy. The basics are out-of-this-world incredible. From just 3.0 liters and 10 cylinders—without horsepower-enhancing turbocharging or supercharging—an F1 engine makes about 900 horsepower. It does this by revving to an incredible 19,000 rpm..."


research, stats, proof? Or is this straight from your *** again? Wait I just read it again and I figured out where this is coming from. Your enthusiasm for V8 power while captivating and compelling in nature is proving to be baseless. And thank you for assuming I think "TT 6-bangers are so nice and perfect". I own and drive a V-8 for my own reasons...primarily COST!
V-8's are FLAT out the cheapest way to produce power but to presume it is the only way to produce power is what makes most of your arguments completely void and ignorant.

The determining factor concerning which engine would move a car faster is based more on gearing, weight and aerodynamics than it is power.


Ok

jimmy169

This guy is my hero!

Hydramatic

Good points, but the derogative tone is completely uncalled for. You need to sit down and take a chill pill internet e-warrior. You shouldn't have just jumped on here and started bitching because I only got half of my facts 100% correct. I'm just regurgitating what I've learned and been told.

My enthusiasm stems from the fact, hear that, FACT, that an uninterrupted supply of power is better than an interrupted supply ANY DAY. You can't just flatline power production in the middle of the power band and tell me that that is the most efficient way of making power, because it isn't. Simple common sense. If you don't believe me look at the dyno graph.

The GT-R flatlines between turbine engagement, not the most efficient, steady delivery of power I've ever seen. Not optimal for smooth transitions through corners. What happens if you NEED that power coming out of the turn or else your opponent passes you? You gun it and the engine lags at that flatline, and the opponent whizzes on by you because he doesn't have to worry about turbo spooling. It's marginal, but it does exist. This kind of thing has sunk better cars than the GT-R in professional racing.

As to your comments about the Evo, etc having fantastic acceleration, I'll agree, the turbo plays a part in that, but most of that can be attributed to their stock gearing in the 4.xx range, incredibly low numbers which directly impose that lovely speed limit at around ~130mph on a car that feels like it could do much more. On lesser cars like the STi, Evo, and(lo and behold!)the Nissan SKyline GT-R the turbo down-spool between shifts is fairly poor, which is why some serious drivers like installing ALS(Anti-lag system, aka backfiring or misfiring system) on their cars to keep the turbo spooled and making power. It trashes the turbine over time, but it does its job well and counters the negative effects of turbo spool.

I am also very aware of how forced induction can, in some ways, replace the lacking of displacement in an engine. A prime example of this is the Jaguar XJ220, which has a 3.5L V6 and two T3 turbos. It made around 550hp and was the supercar around until its arch nemesis, the McLaren F1, with it's naturally aspirated 6.1L V12 came and smashed the Jaguar to pieces, putting out around 630 hp and later close to 700 horses.

While I'm on that subject, McLaren SPECIFICALLY wanted an NA engine because(Check this out!) they deemed turbo and blown motors too unpredictable with their power delivery. They reinforce my position about turbos in racing vehicles in this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1

NA engines are simply preferred for racing, and you can ask any drivers around, if they were offered a turbo engine with 500 horses or an NA engine with 500 horses, which would they pick and I'd bet money any REAL, PROFESSIONAL racer would choose the NA hands down. You've got to understand that smoothness is key on the track, and jerky power delivery isn't what it's all about.

Also I'm having trouble finding just what type of turbo setup it really has. Is it a Parallel or Sequential dual-scroll? Judging by the dyno chart it looks like a sequential, but as proved earlier, I can be wrong about things...

Also, on the topic of my age and education, I'm attending my Junior year at Texas State University. This might be infuriating to you, but I've always been able to prove my point WITHOUT sources to my teachers. "A" grade material too!

I don't think that V8's are the godliest source of power on the earth either, just that a V8 is better than a V6 with identical power adders, etc. More bangs = more power, and in most cases, smoother power delivery. There is a reason why V12s can make ungodly amounts of power and still sound like silk.

Don't believe me? Check out what the top sports car makers in the world put into their top models...They either use natural aspiration or blowers because turbos don't deliver poer the "right way"....

Porsche Carrera GT-NA
Ferrari Enzo-NA
Lamborghini Murcielago-NA
Corvette Z06/ZR1-NA
Dodge Viper-NA
Pagani Zonda-NA
McLaren F1-NA
Koeniggsegg CCX-twin blowers
TVR Cerbera Speed 12-NA
McLaren SLR-NA
Ford GT-blower
Ultima GTR-NA CHEVROLET V8
Caparo T1-NA 3.5L V8

But the fact that most major sports car producers choose NA over turbo is not the point here, rather only a supporting argument for my position that a turbo car just isn't optimal for racing on a turn course. With engine technology as it is today, Nissan would've delivered a much more impressive vehicle if they had just stuck a souped-up, forged VK45 in there as opposed to the loss-leader type engine they decided to go with. An engine doesn't have to start as an exotic if the end result is there, like the Koenigsegg CC8S proved to the world.

Now go ahead and talk about the Bugatti Veyron and I'll laugh at you because it not only has a huge, abnormal engine type, but FOUR turbos. Retardedly inefficient, but it is one of the few turbo engines out there with such a smooth power curve....

All that being said, I still love the new GTR. I've always loved Skylines for as long as I've known about them. All I'm saying is that I personally have a problem with them using a tt V6 when several less complex, NA V8's could've made for better powerplants for racing use....but I guess I was mistaken in thinking that everyone thought that way. Sorry if I misinformed anyone with my previous posts in any way. Let's try to keep this civil here...

mzoomora

iTrader: (36)

Power has more to do with performance than gearing or aero. Otherwise everybody would just re-gear their cars and runs 10's or better. Weight is a huge factor because power/weight ratio is huge.
Perfect example is an S2000, fairly aerodynamic, lightweight and geared well, but it doesnt stack up well to other larger more powerful cars.
Road course performance had more to do with set-up, but that is a different story.
The point is there is no one determining factor, but power/weight ratio is probably the most important.