[Alan]

Copied from the advert :nervous:

"THE UK CAR HAS BEEN PROFESSIONALLY RE MAPPED TO 650BHP AND HAS TO BE ONE OF THE FASTEST NISSAN'S AVAILABLE TODAY. ALSO COMES WITH THE BENEFIT OF A NISSAN MANUFACTURES WARRANTY UNTIL JUNE 2012."

ALEXANDERS PRESTIGE : NISSAN GT-R 3.8 BLACK EDITION AUTO 650BHP

 

[Kamae]

What do you have to do to a GTR to get 650 bhp!?
I've heard of access ports, remaps and exhaust mods, but this must go quite a way beyond that if it really is 650bhp.

Maybe the claimed power is just as unbelievable as the claimed warranty!!

 

[Jm-Imports]

still has stock exhuast it will be nowhere near 650

 

[R33_GTS-t]

Uprated actuators are the key. Perfectly possible with stock turbos from reading around. I think someone made about 600whp or 706hp with stock turbos on a dyno.

The Nissan Warrantee is definitely BS though. They may have a piece of paper but it ain't worth shit anymore.

 

[thistle]

On a Mustang/Dynojet in the US perhaps. Here for similar quarter mile times and maps/specs we're getting about the same at the flywheel as they get at the wheels.

 

[R33_GTS-t]

Oh not this argument again.

 

[EvolutionVI]

Uprated actuators are the key. Perfectly possible with stock turbos from reading around. I think someone made about 600whp or 706hp with stock turbos on a dyno.

The Nissan Warrantee is definitely BS though. They may have a piece of paper but it ain't worth shit anymore.

The 706whp printout paper is worth as much as the warranty paper..:wavey:

 

[thistle]

R33 GTS-t, I'm glad you think actuators can do 600 WHP on a UK dyno. Where then are the R35 GTRs you've tuned that have done 10 second quarter in the UK? AFAIK I've tuned the only two so far

Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[R33_GTS-t]

The 706whp printout paper is worth as much as the warranty paper..:wavey:

Why is it that some people fail to read properly?


Go back and read what I've written again. It says 600whp, which is about 706hp flywheel factoring in a 15% loss.

 

[R33_GTS-t]

R33 GTS-t, I'm glad you think actuators can do 600 WHP on a UK dyno. Where then are the R35 GTRs you've tuned that have done 10 second quarter in the UK? AFAIK I've tuned the only two so far

Or do I misunderstand you?

You misunderstand that I have tuned any but here's one someone else made earlier. The 11.15 ET is fairly average with a not so brilliant start but I'm sure you'll agree that a 130mph trap roughly matches with the claimed and tested output.

Kit Includes:

Dual 3 to Single 3.5 Stainless Steel Midpipe

Dual 3 Stainless Steel Downpipes

Polished Aluminum Intercooler Pipe Kit with Blue or Black Silicone (option)

EVC 6 Boost Controller

SSQ Blow Of Valves Recirculated to Intake

Iridium Spark Plugs

Upgraded Turbo Actuators

Cobb Accessport Tuning Utility

Pre-Programmed Tunes for 93 Octane Gas

20.5 psi spike with settling to 17 psi

 

[thistle]

No fuel upgrade, our injectors are wide open at the top at that power at the flywheel.

The spark plugs, BOV make no difference. We control boost using the ECU. One of our ten second cars has an intercooler, one has actuators. We're all limited by the ECU's knock control on similar octane of fuel.

Our ETs are a few tenths faster, our terminal speed is 1mph slower.

But I would say we probably have about that power at the flywheel!

A standard car here on Dyno Dynamics with a map did 527 BHP. I have sent similar maps to the US and tuners are getting that at the wheels on Mustang dynos which read lower than Dynojets. The same map on an identical car set a better quarter mile time than something with 588 WHP on a Dynojet.

Everything aligns except the dyno figures. Dyno figures always have lied, always will.

 

[R33_GTS-t]

No fuel upgrade, our injectors are wide open at the top at that power at the flywheel.

Have you tried increasing the fuel pressure? Aren't the stock injectors about 600+cc anyway?

The spark plugs, BOV make no difference. We control boost using the ECU. One of our ten second cars has an intercooler, one has actuators. We're all limited by the ECU's knock control on similar octane of fuel.

Our ETs are a few tenths faster, our terminal speed is 1mph slower.

But I would say we probably have about that power at the flywheel!

A standard car here on Dyno Dynamics with a map did 527 BHP. I have sent similar maps to the US and tuners are getting that at the wheels on Mustang dynos which read lower than Dynojets. The same map on an identical car set a better quarter mile time than something with 588 WHP on a Dynojet.

Everything aligns except the dyno figures. Dyno figures always have lied, always will.

Well why don't you have a chat with some US dyno operators because they all seem to get about the same? Have a chat with Boost Logic on Supraforums and tell them that you think their dyno lies. Have a chat with all the other tuners getting upwards of 550whp too. The 588 is with higher octane. 545whp is the number with 93, hence the 640 (15% loss).

If the car's making 500hp flywheel as stock at 0.7 bar, how exactly can you increase boost to 1.2bar and only get an extra 27hp. The math on that doesn't add up unless your cooling system is heat-soaked or your dyno is knackered. Or do you mean 527whp?

So what exact time did you get?

Here's some more info. (560whp):
GTRCenter » Blog Archive » HKS GT570 + Cobb accessport – True crank horsepower

The 600whp was achieved with a Haltech ECU, see post #12
772whp on stock turbos - NAGTROC - The Nissan GT-R Owners Club

That's the highest ever achieved with stock I believe. The absolute limit. If you want a discussion on it find MindlessOath. Post #12 is his and he's on this forum.

I stand by what I said, 600whp is, give or take, the absolute theoretical maximum that stock turbos can flow. And actuators are the key because they allow you to hold more than about 1.0bar to the redline. And 650hp flywheel is achievable in a driveable package because several people of nagtroc have 550+whp packages with stock turbos and uprated actuators. I believe I've vindicated myself but am baffled at why you chose to turn a simple statement of fact into a research essay.

 

[thistle]

Stock injectors are about 550cc, so based on 5.5cc/BHP they top out at about 600 BHP. Americans often claim lower BSFC.

You posted a video of 588 WHP and underneath it wrote 93 octane, if they are using higher octane then I'll credit them with a bit more, but not that much more on a UK dyno.

The standard car makes 478 BHP at 0.8 bar. At peak power the tuned example I quoted is running 1 bar, and I certainly do NOT mean 527 WHP.

You can read all about GTR times on a European R35 dyno times thread in this very forum. We're at number 1,2,3, need I go on?

I'm talking to American tuners all the time as I'm developing Cobb software for them. I've been collaborating with Americans on engine tuning projects for years. We don't discuss dyno results.

I do not believe the boost levels used on the GT570 kit make it do any more than 570 BHP on a UK dyno. 560 WHP just illustrates different reading dynos again.

600 WHP on Haltech with stock turbos likewise, more like 600 BHP.

MindlessOath is not a tuner I believe, he is an interesting poster on both forums who I like to read though.

You can stand by 600 WHP all you like, I would agree with you on a Dynojet or Mustang. Put it on Dyno Dynamics in standard shootout mode and see what you get.

Actuators are partly the key, but with the boost control we've rewritten in the ECU, a standard car can hold about 0.97 bar at the red line. AMS interestingly just posted that 2 PSI gain in boost with actuators over this level at 6200+ RPM gained no power, but there is debate over whether that was due to knock or heatsoak as others do find modest gains.

Using Cobb staged tunes we get nowhere near the US dyno figures. On standard cars we get nowhere near the US dyno figures. US and UK dynos are different. If UK users think they will get US dyno figures they will be bitterly disappointed. That is why I challenge it. However, on good quarter mile strips they will be competitive with their quarter mile times.

I'm less wet behind the ears with this than you may think, I simply do not believe US and UK dyno figures tally. I will not go silly with it and say we can't learn anything from US results or that I don't admire their tuning.

What actually matters is the difference in power before-after, Martin Donnon on NAGTROC caused a stir when he posted Mainline dyno figures, he had to use a huge multiplier to get them to read like a Dynojet the Americans were familiar with. I never post dyno plots on US forums because they just don't get that our dynos read much lower. At least with the GTR doing good quarters with its gearbox it removes a lot of the difference in quarter mile times across the pond as long as we use a proper strip like Santa Pod. There is much less UK experience with drag racing, so on manual cars not only do our dyno results look poor, but our quarter times and terminals do too. Not any longer.

I'd rather have 450 WHP that does 10s than 588 WHP that does 11s. What would you rather have?

 

[R33_GTS-t]

Stock injectors are about 550cc, so based on 5.5cc/BHP they top out at about 600 BHP. Americans often claim lower BSFC.

They 60lb injectors. So that's about 120hp each or 720 together. Allowing for flow and restrictions this reduces to 690-700ish.

The standard car makes 478 BHP at 0.8 bar. At peak power the tuned example I quoted is running 1 bar, and I certainly do NOT mean 527 WHP.

Well what kind of wheel to crank conversion are you using, as most stock GTRs dyno around 500+hp with 15% corrections. 400-420 on a mustang and 430-450 on a dynojet. Logic would dictate more than a 27hp gain from an extra 0.2bar. 27hp doesn't knock a second off quarter mile times.

You can read all about GTR times on a European R35 dyno times thread in this very forum. We're at number 1,2,3, need I go on?

You do need to go on and drop half a second and be with the world's best. And I thought you said you were within 1mph of the trap speed in the video. The best trap on that list in the top 3 is 126mph. That's about 4mph down.

I'm talking to American tuners all the time as I'm developing Cobb software for them. I've been collaborating with Americans on engine tuning projects for years. We don't discuss dyno results.

Well maybe you should instead of discussing them with me.

I do not believe the boost levels used on the GT570 kit make it do any more than 570 BHP on a UK dyno. 560 WHP just illustrates different reading dynos again.

600 WHP on Haltech with stock turbos likewise, more like 600 BHP.

You can stand by 600 WHP all you like, I would agree with you on a Dynojet or Mustang. Put it on Dyno Dynamics in standard shootout mode and see what you get.

Maybe it is whp. Maybe this is why your traps are 4-5mph down.

Actuators are partly the key, but with the boost control we've rewritten in the ECU, a standard car can hold about 0.97 bar at the red line. AMS interestingly just posted that 2 PSI gain in boost with actuators over this level at 6200+ RPM gained no power, but there is debate over whether that was due to knock or heatsoak as others do find modest gains.

Sounds like the ECU has several ways to kill your fun through boost cutting, AFR and timing but at the end of the day an Impreza Sti can make over 300hp, probably 350hp, using a single one of these turbos.

Using Cobb staged tunes we get nowhere near the US dyno figures. On standard cars we get nowhere near the US dyno figures. US and UK dynos are different. If UK users think they will get US dyno figures they will be bitterly disappointed. That is why I challenge it. However, on good quarter mile strips they will be competitive with their quarter mile times.

So how much power do you think that a stock gtr, weighing 1740kg and running [email protected] has then? 473hp crank? Even with a great gearbox, I ain't buying that. There's lighter RB26 GTRs with around 600hp settling for those numbers. Admittedly the driver is a factor but even so.

I'm less wet behind the ears with this than you may think, I simply do not believe US and UK dyno figures tally. I will not go silly with it and say we can't learn anything from US results or that I don't admire their tuning.

It sounds to me that you need to meet with them and have a proper dyno comparison session. Arguing with me won't solve anything. Ask anyone on this forum who's tried it.

What actually matters is the difference in power before-after, Martin Donnon on NAGTROC caused a stir when he posted Mainline dyno figures, he had to use a huge multiplier to get them to read like a Dynojet the Americans were familiar with. I never post dyno plots on US forums because they just don't get that our dynos read much lower. At least with the GTR doing good quarters with its gearbox it removes a lot of the difference in quarter mile times across the pond as long as we use a proper strip like Santa Pod. There is much less UK experience with drag racing, so on manual cars not only do our dyno results look poor, but our quarter times and terminals do too. Not any longer.

You say tomayto, I say tomarto. But why potayto?

I'd rather have 450 WHP that does 10s than 588 WHP that does 11s. What would you rather have?

I rather be able to recognise that a good quarter is all in the first 60ft and that no amount of tuning will make up for a bad launch and realise that 0-130 in 11.1 indicates a more powerful car than 0-125 in 10.9. I'd also realise that comparing 3500rpm LC cars with 2500rpm LC cars in terms of ET is like comparing an easter egg with a chicken egg. The new LC might not make that must difference with the stock car but with increased power it changes everything. 3500rpm LC cars could easily dip below 3s 0-60 with increased power. Trying to get below 3s 0-60 with the 2500rpm LC system is like trying to put marble through a cheese-grater.

And frankly I don't give a shit how fast I can do a quarter, I'm more interested in how fast I can get from 60-100 or 60-130, as that's what helps me overtake. Stop-racing is for people who stop too much.

 

[cleethorpes]

handbags at dawn....

 

[mindlessoath]

this is totaly false 650bhp.

first and foremost you have to ask anyone who is doing this what the baseline is. then you have to see the differnce between HP, WHP, BHP, PS, KW or whatever.

i hate these advertising traps that people are going to fall into. plus anything done to a gtr is going to be denied warranty for that affected area.

IF you take 480 as your baseline that is very false, you must dyno and get the results, then using teh same dyno with the mods and the same correction factors if used, then you can say the power gained.

most advertisers use an estimated drivetrain loss to drive up these numbers for advertising, so 15%, 20% whatever, the higher the guess of the number the higher they can adverstise. thats annother false trap.

look for hp gained over stock dyno pull from the same tuners dyno (if you look at other dynos they may have correction factors they didnt include in the graph), try to look at WHP not drivetrain loss guestimates. also the R35 has been proven to have just about 10% friction loss. with spikes in the boost on the dyno it sometimes goes a bit higher to about 12% or so. and nissan has made a statement and proof that there drivetrain loss is 10% as they use ultra low friction bearings and Dual clutch transmission etc.

 

[thistle]

Best ET is listed there, not best trap which was 128mph in 10.9, and since we're splitting hairs the one in the video didn't actually break 130mph either did it, although some similar ones have, many don't. On stock actuators and injectors, with stock ECU boost control and considering how long we've had the cars in the UK that is respectable, have you done better on an R35?

I believe your source overestimates the size of the injectors. The injectors are wide open at 11.5:1 AFR on external wideband. And that is with appropriate ignition timing. I was after all the one who disassembled the stock ECU knock control so I should know how to get the best timing out of them when most tuners haven't even started logging it yet and most are oblivious to how much timing their ECUs are pulling out.

Yes I do believe the stock car is 478 BHP.

I tend not to use dynos to tune since I have found that best acceleration on turbo engines often does not tally with the tune that gives the best dyno figures. Dynos are simulators, and usually poor ones at that. The airflow, loading, cooling, tyre deformation are all unrealistic. The fact that a standard car on one dyno can run higher power than a well tuned car on another that accelerates faster proves it to me.

If you have timing box equipment it is susceptible to question, just like dynos. Quarter mile times with proper certification tend to be better accepted, but I agree rolling acceleration is more important. The day I took my Subaru to a dyno, had 80 BHP less than a similar weight car and then pulled six car lengths on him on an airfield afterwards, repeated with swapped drivers, was the day I stopped taking too much notice of dynos. The car was tuned for maximum safe acceleration, did not knock in road or track use, but did on the dyno. GTRs are difficult to properly dyno test, and the engine bay is crowded and hot. The transmission can cause all sorts of limp modes. Consistency can be difficult.

So I've got little ambition to resolve cross Atlantic dyno differences. Those that know, know. Occasionally I point it out and get drawn into debate. I'm probably too keen to waste my time shooting down dyno figures that don't square with what I call reality. But we all know big numbers sell, and that is the real reason they are used.

 

[thistle]

Nissan GT-R Injector Flow Test Comparison and Future Upgrades - NAGTROC - The Nissan GT-R Owners Club

Here is an actual GTR injector flow test result. 570cc. So 10% less than your 60lb claim, and using a 5% higher BSFC you start to get some of the figures more realistic. Interestingly from the NAGTROC thread where you quoted Martin's 60 lb claim, the tuners all seemed to agree with the power figures on their dynos, all from high reading dynos IMHO.

The GTR is fast enough without all the unrealistic/mythical power figures. I'd rather understate my power and surprise with acceleration.

 

[thistle]

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/attachments/3322d1250071532-dyno-results-quarter-mile-time-dyno.jpg

Here is a Dyno Dynamics showing a standard car at 479 BHP.

It is the only plot I have of the GTC Stage 2 99 RON map which is 528 BHP although this was without the exhaust. Less of a gain than you might expect from looking at other claims, but the same map (also on a stock car without the exhaust) has done 125mph terminals.

Yet we read of 513 WHP on Mustang... also doing 125 mph terminal.

513 WHP vs 528 BHP, could they be the same?

If the Dyno Dynamics had the WHP on it, we could probably find a stock US car on Dynojet that has more WHP. Does that make it faster?

There are all sorts of ways you can cut this.

 

[R33_GTS-t]

Also the R35 has been proven to have just about 10% friction loss.

No it hasn't and please don't show me that effort where they measured drivetrain drag on rundown. If you want to use that effort then please press the ends of your fingers on to rough sand paper and drag them back and forth slowly. Then do the same fast and see if you record the same skin loss.

This 650hp may well actually be a 5hp lawn-mover engine that's been slotted into a crashed R35 that's been welded to a G35 but 650hp is possible with stock turbos.

Best ET is listed there, not best trap which was 128mph in 10.9, and since we're splitting hairs the one in the video didn't actually break 130mph either did it, although some similar ones have, many don't.

0.05mph? Seriously? You should know that it takes a lot of power to make 2mph on trap for a similar time. What was the 128mph ET?

On stock actuators and injectors, with stock ECU boost control and considering how long we've had the cars in the UK that is respectable, have you done better on an R35?

Never said I could. You started this whole affair by incorrectly stating that 650hp flywheel couldn't be achieved on stock turbos, which is still incorrect despite your efforts to diversify the argument. Didn't Amuse bloody measure 550+whp with stock turbos anyway. What am I even arguing about here? Is Amuse's dyno faulty too?

I believe your source overestimates the size of the injectors. The injectors are wide open at 11.5:1 AFR on external wideband. And that is with appropriate ignition timing. I was after all the one who disassembled the stock ECU knock control so I should know how to get the best timing out of them when most tuners haven't even started logging it yet and most are oblivious to how much timing their ECUs are pulling out.

Well it looks like BoostLogic's GTR is in defiance of your 600hp (510whp) calculation and Amuse's GTR is too.

Yes I do believe the stock car is 478 BHP.

Well I'm afraid that's mathematically impossible. The fact a 1740kg car makes a quarter in [email protected]+ with less than 600hp is a miracle atributable to the gearbox. Making that time with 478hp would require divine intervention. By that logic every stage 1 skyline GTR would be in the high 11s. Nissan achieved a lot through science but stopped short of outright magic. Funny how pretty much none of the 10% magic men dispute that their quoted torque output is total bollocks.

I tend not to use dynos to tune since I have found that best acceleration on turbo engines often does not tally with the tune that gives the best dyno figures. Dynos are simulators, and usually poor ones at that. The airflow, loading, cooling, tyre deformation are all unrealistic.

Yes. I'm not a tuner and even I know that. They also don't do well at measuring performance when not on WOT. They're a place to start before going on to the road.

The fact that a standard car on one dyno can run higher power than a well tuned car on another that accelerates faster proves it to me.

Well of course it will. That's like saying that your quarter mile will be slower if you run it up a 1:3 gradient. But dynos of the same make should give approximately the same results under the same ambient operating condition if they're in the same state of repair and configuration. But yes it's best to use them to measure performance differences between mods. However, given that they don't necessarily measure true acceleration potential maybe you should test your cars with 40-95 and 60-125 runs in 3rd and 4th on a local bypass.

If you have timing box equipment it is susceptible to question, just like dynos. Quarter mile times with proper certification tend to be better accepted, but I agree rolling acceleration is more important.

If you don't configure it correctly it becomes more open to question but then couldn't you also question track times since under NHRA rules a track can vary by up to 12ft in altitude between start and finish. A slight uphill to give better traction at the start, with maybe 15ft of downhill for the last 350yards.:flame: Then you've got windspeed and altitude and temperature and humidity.:flame: So in the end a track time is also full of shit unless you measure on the same track on the same day but even then the temperature or altitude could unreasonably advantage or disadvantage a turbocharged car against an NA car, especially a turbocharged car with a small engine, or with poor cooling.:flame::flame::flame:

The day I took my Subaru to a dyno, had 80 BHP less than a similar weight car and then pulled six car lengths on him on an airfield afterwards, repeated with swapped drivers, was the day I stopped taking too much notice of dynos.

Well you tend to use more than 1rpm of a car's powerband - that could also have had a bearing.

The car was tuned for maximum safe acceleration, did not knock in road or track use, but did on the dyno.

Usually the otherway round from what I've heard, especially with the sort of boost spikes and early spool you can get from uphill acceleration in a high gear.

GTRs are difficult to properly dyno test, and the engine bay is crowded and hot. The transmission can cause all sorts of limp modes. Consistency can be difficult.

I'll take your word for it.

So I've got little ambition to resolve cross Atlantic dyno differences. Those that know, know. Occasionally I point it out and get drawn into debate. I'm probably too keen to waste my time shooting down dyno figures that don't square with what I call reality. But we all know big numbers sell, and that is the real reason they are used.

Well you really should because I'm tired of these discrepancies and they're always going to be here until someone takes a car over there, or vice-versa, and takes some measurements.

Here's another one, check the signature. 551whp up from 420whp:
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=30401&view=findpost&p=423377