Despite what Nissan claims, the GT-R is not making the advertised 480 horsepower.

http://www.caranddriver.com/feature..._is_the_gt_r_s_real_horsepower_column?cid=259


What is the GT-R’s Real Horsepower? - Column

Despite what Nissan claims, the GT-R is not making the advertised 480 horsepower.

BY LARRY WEBSTER, PHOTOGRAPHY BY JEFFREY G. RUSSELL
October 2008



It’s a ringer,†we said among ourselves as soon as the first Nissan GT-R’s test results were in. Despite a power-to-weight ratio that’s 30 percent worse than that of the similarly priced Corvette Z06, that first GT-R outran the Z06 to 60 mph (3.3 seconds versus 3.4 for the quickest Z06 we’ve tested) and through the quarter-mile (11.5 at 124 mph versus 11.8 at 125). Even allowing for the launch advantages of all-wheel drive, the GT-R’s performance made us suspicious. It wouldn’t be hard for Nissan engineers, we surmised, to crank up the boost and thus jack up horsepower that would result in astonishing track numbers in American car-magazine tests. The GT-R was in such demand and our allotted time with it was so short, however, that we didn’t have time to strap it onto a chassis dyno and measure the horsepower.

We soon tested two more GT-Rs, and supporting our suspicions, they were considerably slower. GT-R No. 2 was 0.6 second behind the No. 1 through the quarter, and GT-R numero tres was a disturbing 1.1 seconds slower. Again, we didn’t have enough time to dyno-test those cars, but it seemed clear that the first GT-R was likely a one-of-a-kind rocket.

We finally got the opportunity to run a GT-R on a chassis dyno in May after Tony Swan returned with the example he used for the One Lap of America competition. The only problem with that car—No. 4 in our series—was that it performed about as well as the first. There were some differences, as you can see in the chart below, but those can easily be chalked up to the fact that the cars were tested on different days at different tracks. Yes, we do perform a weather correction to account for much of the ambient-condition difference, but no correction is perfect.

A brief primer on the Mustang chassis dyno we used: Picture a pair of parallel, supersized rolling pins mounted in the floor. The car is strapped down so that the front wheels are on one roller and the rears on the other. The operator puts the car in gear and, via the tires, spins these rollers, which are attached to a device that measures the applied force. A computer that ties into the car’s diagnostic plug and reads engine rpm calculates the horsepower. This power figure is what’s known as “wheel horsepower,†and it’s less than the engine horsepower that’s listed in our specs because the drivetrain components—transmission, driveshafts, bearings, differential—all have internal friction that soaks up power. How much power is lost in the journey to the road is not accurately known, but a 15-percent loss for rear-drive cars with manual transmissions and a near 20-percent loss for four-wheel-drive cars are good estimates.

On MotorCity Speed’s Mustang dyno in Commerce Township, Michigan, GT-R No. 4 produced a peak of 415 horsepower at the wheels. Based on our 20-percent loss estimate, the engine output was 519, or 39 horsepower more than Nissan’s stated 480.

So what’s up? We called Nissan, and the company says the first four cars we tested were early-build versions that received regular engine-computer software updates, which may account for the varied results we recorded. We then wondered which engine-computer calibration was the one real-world GT-R buyers would receive.

Three weeks later, a fifth GT-R arrived. This one, allegedly, was a production version with the latest—and final—engine calibration. We took it both to the test track and MotorCity’s dyno.

This car performed nearly identically to the fourth car. It smoked the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at 120 mph and produced 420 wheel horsepower. We also measured the turbo boost pressure in both cars, and the curves were basically identical.

Though we didn’t get a chance to dyno-test the two slower GT-Rs, three of the five were so close in performance that we believe they accurately represent the GT-R’s capability. Clearly, Nissan is delivering more than the advertised 480 horsepower. And the most likely figure is about 520, which is yet another reason to bow to the best performance value since the Corvette Z06.

 

interesting arty. kinda like the e55s that were making more than the 469hp numbers that merc advertised.

 

Not a surprise that they'd sandbag a little bit - especially given the performance numbers that have come up (the Nurburgring comes to mind).

 

Wow! Good article bro. I think you should just get one of those with your bonus!!! Just don't tell Tish I said that!!

 

Man I love that car!

 

Just so all of you get an understanding of what this car will really do, there was one at a local trace in NC and I took it by .931 seconds in the quarter with my mustang which by the way is totally streetable.

The price they are asking for the performance that it has is way to high as I see it. Yes I do own a Viper and a highly modified (big bucks) Stealth RT/TT, but if you really want to go racing and not break the bank it is very easy to build a Mustang that will eat it alive...

I have received a pro-charger kit for my SRT-8 but because it is so heavy I dont think it will come close to the Mustang. By the way the 535RWHP I list is the corrected number and the car now only comes in at 3223lbs...

 

no matter what car you get, you can always get a fox body to run much faster for cheaper, that's why everyone loves them. but you can't compare a car that's a minimum of 15 years old to a brand new out of the box car. it's just not fair.

sure i can get a 4 banger fox for $500 and dump about 10g's into it and run 9's. but it's not the same thing. i would still have a porn star interior. it would still be loud and mean and uncomfortable. it would still be a box. don't misunderstand, i am a mustang girl at heart, i love mustangs and always will. fox's specifically. but i know there's a difference between that and a new car.

i also don't love the gt-r. i really just don't love nissan. bunch of scamming theves. i respect the car for what it is, but i would never buy one.

 

The MACH I is not a fox body its a 2004 with only 8812 miles...

 

it's still a mustang though, and everything is $100 lulz.

you're also talking about car that's a minimum of what, 50k cheaper? that's a lot of room to play with to make it much faster. and mustangs are easy to mod...always have been always will be. although i have to admit i hate the 4.6 compared to the 302.

 

No 50K cheaper....about 35K cheaper. From a technical standpoint the 4.6 32V is very different from the 5.0 for sure. I have an 85 GT with only 22K miles on it and I love it (been up on blocks for nearly 15 years) and it has the last 5.0 carborated motor that ford put in a Mustang.

The 4.6 (mine is the Ford Aluminator performance long block) is "hot stuff" for what it costs and it can take a real licking and keep on ticking so to speak. Red line on my is 7800 RPM and I can control everything via the ECU (AEM) and my laptop.

Not to take anything way from push rod motors or the 5.0 - but the 4.6 to me as a lot more fun....and new technology as well...

 

:worthy: 5.0 haha

then we get into the ricer "WELL I SPENT $200 ON MY CIVIC AND ITS SUPER FAST!"....its the "this is how i bought it from the dealer" line....

that's as much as i will defend a Nissan lol...as i would rather have a crappy (but mod'ed) 5.0 Mustang than a brand new GT-R...but that's just my personal opinion.

 

everyone also said the same thing about the neon srt when it came out. it was...."but it's still a 20k neon. i can spend 10k on a mustang and it will be faster!" yea...but it will still be 15 years old. you just can't compare new to old cars.

and i agree that i would prefer a mustang to a gt-r. not sure i would buy a newer mustang though. the newest body style is nice, but they want entirely too much money for anything other than a GT. 50k for a mustang? wtf??????

 

im pretty much with you 100% lol....why do ya think i drive a SRT Charger :happy: haha....

 

....they want almost 80k for a nissan....

 

i agree Amy

 

OK ... but dont try and race a Gt500 with your Charger because you are going to get whipped badly !!!

 

you clearly have not met the people up here who drive GT500's....half of them im amazed can figure out how to make the damn thing move forward! hahahahahaha

I guarantee that i'll see some GT-R around here that are beat to crap cause people buy things cause they are the most expensive version or rare version of something vs knowing anything about them....

 

any terminator rustang will beat an srt8. the bottom line here is class, the srt8 is in a class by itself in terms of power, comfort and reliability.

 

Nice, that the car is putting out more than advertised, but if I were going to spend that kinda of money on a car...Nissan, would be pretty far down on my list of cars to consider.

 

your comparing a supercharged coupe to a NA 4 door sedan lol....

i dont know about class by ourselves....power/comfort/reliability for the price....M series and AMG series cars seem to deliver those things too...just for way more money lol