Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
990 messages, Last post on Sep 05, 2009 at 6:04 AM
You are in the Nissan GT-R Forum. Your Host is claires
2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo - Balance and body control of the GT-R are extraordinary through faster, bumpy bends that will have the 911 unsettled enough to make the driver lose confidence. I had a number of heart-in-mouth moments in the Turbo trying to keep up with the GT-R, even with the Porsche's suspension set to its harder Sport setting. (more)
|
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 02, 2008 10:23 am) Are you an undertaker? No what, that IS recession proof. You must work with oil. Am I right? -moo
|
|
|
Replying to: madmanmoo (Apr 02, 2008 11:12 am) Only on the internet could I be accused of being subjective. I mean really, I am a CPA. We aren't exactly known for our flights of fancy.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 02, 2008 11:18 am) On a side note, most of my customers are older gentleman. I get a decent amount of sales from younger couples on my Cayennes. All I know is, I had a MatchBox 911 Turbo when I was kid. That's the car I always wanted. I didn't dream about an Evo or a Z. I wanted a Turbo. Still do. -mo |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 02, 2008 10:23 am) I agree with your assessment that our measurement of the economy in terms of 'growth' rather than 'stability' inevitably leads to a bubble-effect. Well.... pop. I too am in a recession-proof industry. I personally can benefit from the housing crisis, just because I'm in the market for a nice home. But to be totally impartial, since most people's good fortune is based upon luck, I have to acknowledge the great many who are unlucky. Here's how impartial I have been so far, and there are probably more examples. I'm not posting out of emotion. I just like a good debate, and there have been good points made on all sides: I hate heavy cars. But heavy is only a half-demerit against a car that is fast despite its weight. I prefer manuals. But the fastest in the world rock the SMG/DSM/DCG. I hate certain interior environments, not based solely on build quality but aesthetically. But I know I can't substantiate that in any real way. For example: I personally hate what BMW has done with their dashboards. They make me wonder what they did with the other half of the bathtub? Function before form. I'd still take a twin-turbo sedan. Oh, 1 more thing... aesthetically the 911s kick the GT-R's butt, IMHO. Lots of things I like about them too. My opinions do not affect my conclusions.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 02, 2008 11:39 am) Is a car that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds worth twice that of one that does it in 8 seconds? If car A runs the Nurburgring 1% faster than car B, is car A 1% better than car B? "The Millionaire Next Door" had a hypothesis that millionaires value cars by the pound. Is a two ton car worth twice that of a one ton car? It is to some. Should we melt them down and value the elements contained within, or just part them out? If it is a combination of things, how do you weight them without being subjective? I think it is impossible. Something this rational might tell you that an Accord V6 sedan is the best car in the world. I still don't want one. The only thing I can think of that is close to objective for what you get for your money is sales data. Whatever vehicle sells the most units clearly provided the most per dollar spent for the people purchasing a new car in that time period. I think this makes the Ford F150 the best vehicle in the US. Who am I to argue, as I only have subjective reasons for preferring other vehicles.  (I added a emotorcon to keep this light and to honestly say that I am confused as to how to evaluate cars, particularly sports car, in an objective manner)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 02, 2008 12:15 pm) i think in the end that there is no one best vehicle for all of mankind, just one best vehicle for you. i think its fun to debate why one would be over the other, but this conversation got WAY to heavy handed with regards to people actually being right or wrong one way or the other - but there really isnt a right or wrong. you vote with your buck. or your virtual buck if you had the money to spend on any car you wanted. i would sure hate if someone decided that the best car for mankind was a pink powderpuffmobile with an automatic transmission and bench seats up front. bleh! i like what i drive, and you like what you drive, and we can all share why we like what we like and what we dont. and i am glad you used the little smiley faces - they sure are cute!  -thene 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Apr 02, 2008 12:15 pm)  I think it works, but that might just be me. Thene is right that everybody has their own criteria, but I usually develop way more criteria than "It has to be a blue Ford". That works for some people. Audits are painful to be on the receiveing end, but have you ever audited a car? Its easier to do objective when you don't weigh things like 1%, sales numbers, etc. I've seen people do spreadsheets with numbers... unsuccessfully. Mental checklists are the way to go, pass/fail. True, if you weighted everything you might end up with an Accord. Very well-rounded. But if I were auditing the Accord, thats a Big fail for me because of the FWD. I had the 2004 F-150. Underpowerd gas-guzzler. Big fail. I can objectively fail the GT-R on looks. If it actually looked more or less like a 350Z, or a Q37 it might pass. It looks too exotic, too rare. The 911 actually has that working for it, IMHO. At least to the untrained eye. Will I be challenged at stoplights? Encouraged to revv it up? Tailgated by unmarked Crown Victorias? Resounding yes = resounding fail. If I lived in a small town this probably would not be quite the problem that it is, and that criteria might dissappear. But there is a lot of technology I want Nissan and other companies to put on other cars. But I have no predispositions about cars. I look at each one as objectively as possible. Thats why even a Kia supercar would be worth a look. Probability of fail is high, but no more than anything else. So when I do my clicking, I do look at just about everything, but I have no favorite. They all just get the once-over. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (Apr 02, 2008 7:40 am) Popular artists: Eminem, Limp Bizkit, Wierd Al Popular movies: Fast and Furious, Napoleon Dynamite Popular past-times: Halo, World of Warcraft, Grand Tourismo 3 Because if it doesn't, I have bad news. I estimate about 90% of all males in the "Me Generations" frequently partake on some of that which is listed above or enjoy something similar. That is "bad news" as you put it. But the good news for Porsche is that the other 10% represents all the market share they will need to continue to succeed. And, I have to say, that your view of the world, where most peoples good fortunes are a matter of "luck" is an equally sad commentary - and I believe a media driven misconception. How much of that you believe is an indication of how addicted to the media you are, not necessarily the reality of the business world. I just spoke at an alumni event for my alma mater. Whether they graduated 5 years ago or 35 years ago, I was impressed by the consistency of message among the highly successful alumni on the panel I moderated. "Find your pashion, stick with it, work harder than the next guy, and the payoff will come". I also coach 3rd/4th grade girls basketball. Last year's team was the smallest in the league. Half the girls had never dribbled a ball. But they listened, worked very hard at practice, played together with real passion and went 9-0. Every girl on the team scored and every one played point guard by the end of the season. There was no "luck" involved. It was 100% effort and commitment on their part. I still get get "thank you"s from parents telling me that their success gave their daughters added confidence to tackle challenges like math and science knowing that if they work hard, they will see results. I won't even disparage Nissan by claiming the GT-R is a matter of "luck". The team that developed it clearly put in a hell of a lot of hard work and passion into producing an impressive car. Will Nissan's corporate executives support the effort and expense required to keep the car competitive for the next 40-50 years like Porsche has done with the 911? That's a question yet to be answered. Same with whether or not Eminem will be around as long as Tom Petty. Take it from an old man, you need to have greater confidence in "work ethic". It's funny how many people that follow their passion and work hard become "lucky" in the eyes of those that don't.
|
|
|
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0803_2009_nissan_gt_r_dyno_test The hysteria surrounding the impending launch of Nissan's GT-R has prompted a mad rush to judge its performance. Various media outlets have attempted to test well-worn engineering mule cars and Japanese-spec vehicles with 112-mph speed limiters. Some have run acceleration tests on sloped track surfaces. Many an unsuspecting GT-R has powered the tire rollers and hub mounts of various dynamometers, registering widely varying power ratings. Most of the numbers generated and quoted have been heroic, which has served to heighten Godzilla's reputation as a mythological beast possessing supernatural powers. But some of these early tests have raised as many questions as they've answered. Over the next few days, we intend to answer them with rigorous testing of a fresh, production-ready U.S.-spec GT-R on flat, level ground. Supercar Cred The GT-R's official output ratings of 480 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque give it a weight-to-power ratio of about 8.1 pounds per horsepower -- that's 25 percent more weight per pony than its King Kong nemesis, the benchmark Porsche 911 Turbo and the Corvette Z06, its closest price competitor carry. Yet somehow early pairings of this anime animal consistently show it running neck and neck with those superstars through the quarter mile. Even if we credit its roughly 10-percent gearing advantage relative to the 911 Turbo for some of that disparity, that still suggests -- on paper at least -- that the car should need about 550-570 horses to keep up. Might Nissan be underreporting horsepower by 15 percent? Let's find out. Which Dynamometer to Choose? There are two basic types of dynos: load type and inertia type. The former generates electric or hydraulic resistance calculated to match a vehicle's on-road aerodynamics and friction. This type (Mustang and Dynapack are name brands) is best for simulating quarter-mile runs but suffers garbage-in-garbage-out inaccuracy if the aero and road-load assumptions are inaccurate (and such nitty-gritty engineering details are not yet widely available for the GT-R). Dynapack dynos bolt right to the wheel hubs, which can flummox high-tech cars like the GT-R, which expect to see four tire-pressure monitors whizzing by when the car is in motion. Inertia type dynos like the Dynojet use large, heavy rollers that employ a 4800-pound roller capable of measuring 1200 horsepower at each axle and measure the rate at which the drivetrain can accelerate them. This type is better for determining horsepower of high-output vehicles, as the power is measured directly (torque is mathematically calculated using engine rpm data recorded from a spark signal wire). For these reasons we chose a Dynojet, borrowing some time from the kind research and development team at filter experts K&N Engineering in Riverside, California. Strapping Godzilla down is no easy feat, as the suspension and crossmembers are largely concealed by aero-slick carbon-fiber underbody armor (Jiffy-Lube jocks, beware -- they have to come off for an oil change, and we couldn't figure out how to remove them). Clever cross-strapping to the beefiest of the exposed lower suspension links restrained the beast and we made our first pull in fifth gear. Fifth was chosen for its 1.00:1 ratio because less torque multiplication or overdrive reduction lowers the load on the gear teeth, reducing losses. Alas, this gear proved too tall, resulting in a "long pull" (28 seconds) generating extra heat and possibly resulting in some turbo-wastegate flutter. Peak output at the wheels: 410.2 hp  5950 rpm & 418.9 lb-ft 3450 rpm We dropped down to fourth gear (1.25:1) for the next three pulls, which lasted about 15 seconds each (an extensive cool-down period of five to 10 minutes between runs lowered engine and transmission temps to around 180 degrees F). These results were closely clustered: 430.6 hp 6700 rpm & 425.3 lb-ft 3900 rpm 425.8 hp 6000 rpm & 433.1 lb-ft 3800 rpm 435.8 hp 6800 rpm & 439.1 lb-ft 3900 rpm K&N's policy is to select the median of three consistent runs, which was the first of our fourth-gear runs. So what's the crank horsepower? Well, if it's 480 as claimed, the power lost to heat and friction in the drivetrain amounts to just 10.3 percent. "No way," says K&N's James Yim, who reckons the bare minimum lost to all the friction and gears in this rear-transaxle all-wheel-drive twin-clutch manual (a radiator about the size of an intercooler is dedicated to cooling the transaxle) is 15 percent. He'd bet it's more like 20 or 25 percent -- especially considering that during such a dyno pull, the ATESSA ET-S AWD system has to route nearly 50 percent of the torque to the front axle to spin that huge front roller on its own (which it won't do during a dry-road acceleration run). Consider too that, although these figures are all weather corrected to SAE standard conditions, the conversion doesn't take into account the loss of intercooler efficiency in 93-degree weather. Given those three drivetrain-loss guesstimates, here's how the crank output looks: Crankshaft horsepower assuming Weather corrected dyno figures 15% loss 20% loss 25% loss Horsepower 430.6 506.6 538.3 574.1 Torque 425.3 500.4 531.6 567.1 Conclusion? Let's concede to the myth and magic of Godzilla that maybe Nissan's wizards have miraculously managed to constrain drivetrain losses to 15 percent and assume the factory's engine-dyno-derived rpm peaks are accurate. That brings our hyper-conservative estimate in at: 507 hp at 6800 rpm and 500 pound-feet at 3200 rpm Might all the engineering mules, Japanese-market test cars, and even this early-build press car be running overboost or some other tweaks that saleable customer cars won't get in order to fan the hysteria surrounding this car? It would be trivially easy to do, but devastating to the car's credibility, so we seriously doubt it. It's far more likely the Japanese are simply continuing an underreporting tradition born during the era of that ridiculous voluntary 280-horsepower cap. And it's certainly a white lie we can learn to love. Our next stop: the broad, flat runways of the decommissioned El Toro Marine air station for the definitive test of Godzilla's acceleration, braking, and handling performance. This is interesting; it seems like Nissan deliberalitely underrated the power of the car just like they did with the old Skyline.
|
|
|
Replying to: motownusa (Apr 03, 2008 5:10 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Nissan GT-R Article Comments - 2009 Nissan GT-R vs. 2008 Porsche 911 Turbo
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan GT-R
2010 Porsche 911
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
