Nissan R35 GT-R Dyno:
12-23-2007, 02:32 PM
#141
12 Second Club
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bucks County, Pa.
Posts: 4,273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Audi LMP 1 turbodeisel engine is a whole different universe than a gasoline based turbo engine. It has MANY advantages for round the clock enduro racing!!
12-23-2007, 03:49 PM
#143
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol @ u
AUdi has been using the turbo in their R8 (gas powered)Le mans car for since at least 2001, and it has always dominated. I wasn't merely speaking of the freak TD R10 which, as pointed out, was very successful.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html
AUdi has been using the turbo in their R8 (gas powered)Le mans car for since at least 2001, and it has always dominated. I wasn't merely speaking of the freak TD R10 which, as pointed out, was very successful.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html
12-23-2007, 03:51 PM
#144
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-23-2007, 03:57 PM
#145
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was one of the first DI race cars, DI's benefits transfer to racing. More precise fuel metering, ability to run higher CR, and ability to make more power on the same or less boost.
12-23-2007, 04:52 PM
#146
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol @ u
AUdi has been using the turbo in their R8 (gas powered)Le mans car for since at least 2001, and it has always dominated. I wasn't merely speaking of the freak TD R10 which, as pointed out, was very successful.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html
AUdi has been using the turbo in their R8 (gas powered)Le mans car for since at least 2001, and it has always dominated. I wasn't merely speaking of the freak TD R10 which, as pointed out, was very successful.
http://www.mulsannescorner.com/audir8-01.html
Oh sorry I mispoke. They won 4 of the 12 races this year, but definently didn't dominate like before.
12-24-2007, 10:58 AM
#147
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI - The horsepower ratings advertised are a BHP rating..
Which means BRAKE HORSEPOWER!
Brake Horsepower is the power output of the engine without any accessories..
this includes.. NO powersteering, NO alternator, NO water pump, NO a/c compessor, NO transmission or drivetrain..
All measurements are to the flywheel only. Brake Horsepower has now been replaced with "SAE HP" .. but this still follows the general basis of the basic ENGINE horsepower.
Nissan's advertised numbers are for the engine only. These dyno numbers indicate WHEEL or HUB power.. or WHP.. (fwhp = front wheel horsepower rwhp = rear wheel horsepower awhp = all wheel horsepower)
These dyno numbers prove that this GTR does in fact produce more power then advertised.
Add roughly 20% to the figures to calculate the estimated BHP or SAE HP
Ryan
Which means BRAKE HORSEPOWER!
Brake Horsepower is the power output of the engine without any accessories..
this includes.. NO powersteering, NO alternator, NO water pump, NO a/c compessor, NO transmission or drivetrain..
All measurements are to the flywheel only. Brake Horsepower has now been replaced with "SAE HP" .. but this still follows the general basis of the basic ENGINE horsepower.
Nissan's advertised numbers are for the engine only. These dyno numbers indicate WHEEL or HUB power.. or WHP.. (fwhp = front wheel horsepower rwhp = rear wheel horsepower awhp = all wheel horsepower)
These dyno numbers prove that this GTR does in fact produce more power then advertised.
Add roughly 20% to the figures to calculate the estimated BHP or SAE HP
Ryan
12-24-2007, 12:50 PM
#149
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny thing is "Guest," is that you can't deviate more than a few ticks from your advertised power. So much for underrated engines.
A lot of the purported "underratedness" comes from the vastly improved gearboxes and running gear.
No one has yet to prove a "beyond the shadow of a doubt" method of determining power seen put to the ground.
The 15% and likewise are approximations.
A lot of the purported "underratedness" comes from the vastly improved gearboxes and running gear.
No one has yet to prove a "beyond the shadow of a doubt" method of determining power seen put to the ground.
The 15% and likewise are approximations.
12-24-2007, 01:41 PM
#150
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny thing "OKcruising" .. I dont want to sign up to this forum to make one post; and funny thing.. I did leave my name on the bottom of the post.. if you read it.
I have no idea what your trying to say in this statment. I'm not deviating anything.. and "ticks from your advertised power" .. I didnt advertise any power.
I am simply adding in some informative knowledge.. The SAE has a system to determine the power output of a vehicle. I posted this information for a reference.
Nissan released the power output figures at the Tokyo Auto Show.. these numbers followed the SAE guidelines. Therefore they are SAE HP or Brake horsepower..
YES Nissan gave us a lower power output then what it makes. The GTR produces 5hp less then advertised to the HUB. The point is, the engine produces more bhp or SAE hp then advertised.
Nissan released this information
480 hp @ 6,400 rpm. 430 lb-ft torque @ 3,200–5,200 rpm
We learned from the dyno postings on the first post
482wps (475whp) and 59.2 kg/m (428 ft-lbs) at the hubs.
Whats the problem again?
RYAN
"Funny thing is "Guest," is that you can't deviate more than a few ticks from your advertised power. So much for underrated engines.
I am simply adding in some informative knowledge.. The SAE has a system to determine the power output of a vehicle. I posted this information for a reference.
Nissan released the power output figures at the Tokyo Auto Show.. these numbers followed the SAE guidelines. Therefore they are SAE HP or Brake horsepower..
YES Nissan gave us a lower power output then what it makes. The GTR produces 5hp less then advertised to the HUB. The point is, the engine produces more bhp or SAE hp then advertised.
Nissan released this information
480 hp @ 6,400 rpm. 430 lb-ft torque @ 3,200–5,200 rpm
We learned from the dyno postings on the first post
482wps (475whp) and 59.2 kg/m (428 ft-lbs) at the hubs.
Whats the problem again?
RYAN
Last edited by guest; 12-24-2007 at 01:47 PM.
12-24-2007, 02:46 PM
#151
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Isn't that from a dyno that reads 10% higher.
I did the math again if this is indeed true, then this car makes 427.5 whp which isn't bad and at the crank if this car indeed loses 15% thru its drivetrain then it makes 491.625 hp.
I also did it if it losses 20% thru its drivetrain and I got 513hp.
I did the math again if this is indeed true, then this car makes 427.5 whp which isn't bad and at the crank if this car indeed loses 15% thru its drivetrain then it makes 491.625 hp.
I also did it if it losses 20% thru its drivetrain and I got 513hp.
12-24-2007, 05:52 PM
#152
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Isn't that from a dyno that reads 10% higher.
I did the math again if this is indeed true, then this car makes 427.5 whp which isn't bad and at the crank if this car indeed loses 15% thru its drivetrain then it makes 491.625 hp.
I also did it if it losses 20% thru its drivetrain and I got 513hp.
I did the math again if this is indeed true, then this car makes 427.5 whp which isn't bad and at the crank if this car indeed loses 15% thru its drivetrain then it makes 491.625 hp.
I also did it if it losses 20% thru its drivetrain and I got 513hp.
12-25-2007, 02:24 PM
#153
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the GTR can not produce a more potent engine than what they advertise.
So if they indeed are "underrating" then there IS a problem. They would be lying about their numbers.
Hence, this is why the hub test is debunked.
If its kept kosher with the new testing guidelines, then it produces 480hp +- 1%. Fine and dandy if it's 485.
That's not what my qualm is. My problem is where they (GTR nutzo's and ignorant journalists) claim it dynos that magic 48x because of the flawed hub dyno.
I'll await some guy to turn around and remove the engine with all accessories and run an engine dyno. That will be the number, too many inflationary numbers for its supposed wheel hp generation.
So if they indeed are "underrating" then there IS a problem. They would be lying about their numbers.
Hence, this is why the hub test is debunked.
If its kept kosher with the new testing guidelines, then it produces 480hp +- 1%. Fine and dandy if it's 485.
That's not what my qualm is. My problem is where they (GTR nutzo's and ignorant journalists) claim it dynos that magic 48x because of the flawed hub dyno.
I'll await some guy to turn around and remove the engine with all accessories and run an engine dyno. That will be the number, too many inflationary numbers for its supposed wheel hp generation.
12-25-2007, 07:47 PM
#154
Launching!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why is that?! Plenty of automakers are under rating engines today and the Japanese are no stranger to that game...
12-25-2007, 08:28 PM
#156
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-25-2007, 10:10 PM
#157
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter what the GTR dynoes? The GT500 dynoes with a tune pretty damn close to what a Z06 does, but it there is no way in hell a stock one is even on the same planet as a Z06.
12-25-2007, 10:45 PM
#158
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sack. The SAE numbers have to be within "X"% of the claimed power ir it does not recieve the rating they are aplying for. The only things changing our our own optimism for our dynos and imperfections in correction.
12-25-2007, 10:58 PM
#159
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that the numbers game changed with the new SAE rating scheme. Hence why you'll see my repeated claims using this as a standard testing guideline.
If I'm misspoken then I apologize, but I think Katech saw the LS7 engines at 1% tolerance.
Driveline slack has a come long way too.
If this is not the case, then by all means, my arguments are moot. Either way, sweet, its all the incentive needed for more mods.
If I'm misspoken then I apologize, but I think Katech saw the LS7 engines at 1% tolerance.
Driveline slack has a come long way too.
If this is not the case, then by all means, my arguments are moot. Either way, sweet, its all the incentive needed for more mods.
12-26-2007, 12:08 AM
#160
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the new SAE test procedure, you can no longer under or overrate engines. And trust me if the GTR really had 550 hp or an amazing AWD drivetrain with zero losses. They beat their chest over lies why wouldn't they have over those facts?