# Are R35 GTR owners petrolheads or 'tards 2



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

The other thread got closed down because Colonel Mustard got all out of shape

Thought Id start another, as the thread name wasn't the issue with the moderators, just the content of the last two pages of the old thread.

I think the normal people had agreed that all that voted that the R35 was supercar, are 'tards

Discuss


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

You don't own a GTR anymore and you keep coming back to start a funny debate... Don't you have a hair dressing appointment to keep or can you afford to take some time posting now as you can get places quicker in the new camp mobile?


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Stealth69 said:


> You don't own a GTR anymore and you keep coming back to start a funny debate... Don't you have a hair dressing appointment to keep or can you afford to take some time posting now as you can get places quicker in the new camp mobile?


I do own a GTR  

Having owned three R35 before. I think I'm qualified to judge

Oh, and hairdressers drive TTs, not R8s

Im just trying to show you all, that just because Ive got a better car than most of you, I dont look down because of your poor decisions.

We are all equals, although some people are more equal than others


----------



## BigBen (Aug 18, 2012)

Even by your standards this is trolling on a new level.


----------



## erol_h (Jun 13, 2008)

FLYNN said:


> I do own a GTR
> 
> Having owned three R35 before. I think I'm qualified to judge
> 
> ...


you love to take the piss reading this post just made me laugh


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

BigBen said:


> Even by your standards this is trolling on a new level.


Not trolling. The old thread was closed. Ive ask why and it was because of the last two pages. I asked for it to be reopened, but to no avail.

I asked if they was a problem with the thread title of other content, and there wasn't, so here we are.


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

FLYNN said:


> I do own a GTR
> 
> Having owned three R35 before. I think I'm qualified to judge
> 
> ...


Lol just winding you up sunshine.... Glad the r8 has pushed the GTR out!!

Hairdressers drive convertible audi's and mx5's.... It's how they measure success as a hair dresser... Mx5 = average, TT = good, R8 = Nicky Clark standard lol


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> I do own a GTR
> 
> Having owned three R35 before. I think I'm qualified to judge
> 
> ...


That has made my day


----------



## Roadrunnerrs2 (Jul 14, 2013)

Flynn,
If you no longer like the GTR why 
1. Do you still have one
2. Did you purchase 3+1 previously before you decided there not for you?
3. From the OSKI thread please confirm what other car on today's market can offer so much for the money. 650R for £5k?

PS R8's are really hairdresser cars, granted maybe not the average dog groomer but Nicky Clarke or Beverly C's taxi / truck
deep down I believe you know this but you obviously love the attention


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

Forget using a rod, this is drift net territory :chuckle:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

If you no longer like the GTR why Didn't say I didn't like it. Ive said it clunks and squeeks because it was built to a budget

1. Do you still have one. I don't have an R35 anymore

2. Did you purchase three previously before you decided there not for you? I didn't say they weren't for me. Im saying some of the owners are 'tards

3. From the OSKI thread please confirm what other car on today's market can offer so much for the money. 650R for £5k? 600hp can be had for a lot less than 5k. This is another example of 'tard. If you want to pay 5k for a decat remap and injectors, then more fool you


----------



## Roadrunnerrs2 (Jul 14, 2013)

FLYNN said:


> If you no longer like the GTR why Didn't say I didn't like it. Ive said it clunks and squeeks because it was built to a budget
> 
> 1. Do you still have one. I don't have an R35 anymore
> 
> ...


650r is 650 bhp not 600? Check SVM


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Roadrunnerrs2 said:


> 650r is 650 bhp not 600? Check SVM


Youre not getting 650hp from stock turbos Im afraid. They come up a little short

Can I ask you a question?

How did you vote in the Is the R35 is a supercar poll?

Actually, don't answer that, I can guess


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Roadrunnerrs2 said:


> 650r is 650 bhp not 600? Check SVM


I thought their figures were all quoted on race gas?


----------



## Roadrunnerrs2 (Jul 14, 2013)

R8's are really hairdresser cars, granted maybe not the average dog groomer but more like Nicky Clarke or Beverly C's day to day taxi / truck
deep down I believe you know this but you obviously love the attention


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

matt j said:


> I thought their figures were all quoted on race gas?


Precisely. They don't even make 650hp on that either



Roadrunnerrs2 said:


> R8's are really hairdresser cars, granted maybe not the average dog groomer but more like Nicky Clarke or Beverly C's day to day taxi / truck
> deep down I believe you know this but you obviously love the attention


Maybe, maybe not.

I didn't make the car, or own Audi, so Im not going to take what you think of a car, that Ill own of a few months personally.

I actually quite like that 5.2 litre V10, purring away just behind your head. Revs all the way up to 9000 rpm. The noise is something else.

If that makes me a hairdresser, then so be it.

What I like to do, is own as many cars as possible, so I can form my own opinions based on experience, rather than trying to make ***** comments based on nothing up pent up jealously because I didn't get that pay rise or job promotion. 

Keep slugging away champ :thumbsup:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

You can most certainly get 650bhp on stock turbos. In fact you can safely go to 650 & even 700 as long as Injectors are upgraded. North of 700 you really need to be swapping out the Turbos.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> You can most certainly get 650bhp on stock turbos. In fact you can safely go to 650 & even 700 as long as Injectors are upgraded. North of 700 you really need to be swapping out the Turbos.


Not without modifying the turbos bud. The stock items run out of steam at 630-640


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Precisely. They don't even make 650hp on that either
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're doing a fantastic job at answering your own Thread titleopcorn:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> You're doing a fantastic job at answering your own Thread titleopcorn:


Thank you. I thought so too, seeming I don't own a R35 anymore..

F*ck logic


----------



## Roadrunnerrs2 (Jul 14, 2013)




----------



## Silver R (Apr 23, 2013)

FLYNN said:


> Youre not getting 650hp from stock turbos Im afraid. They come up a little short
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry mate but more than 650 is achievable on stock turbos. Seen it with my own eyes the car I'm on about also held a stock turbo 1/4 mile record

Granted they may not last long but it's still doable


----------



## BigBen (Aug 18, 2012)

FLYNN said:


> Not trolling. The old thread was closed. Ive ask why and it was because of the last two pages. I asked for it to be reopened, but to no avail.
> 
> I asked if they was a problem with the thread title of other content, and there wasn't, so here we are.


All you are doing is quite brilliantly showing everyone on here how inadequate you are in real life. Shame really as some spoke highly of you.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Roadrunnerrs2 said:


>


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

BigBen said:


> All you are doing is quite brilliantly showing everyone on here how inadequate you are in real life. Shame really as some spoke highly of you.


What a surprise


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Not without modifying the turbos bud. The stock items run out of steam at 630-640


You're wrong my friend:chuckle:

With 1100+cc injectors the stock turbos will perform just fine up to, including & over 650bhp. Closing in on & over 700 would however be a struggle so upgraded turbos would be a sensible upgrade


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> You're wrong my friend:chuckle:
> 
> With 1100+cc injectors the stock turbos will perform just fine up to, including & over 650bhp. Closing in on & over 700 would however be a struggle so upgraded turbos would be a sensible upgrade


I beg to differ. Probably daft DD over read, or your get your info from GTRlife

Without changing the compressor wheel, youre not getting 650 on pump fuel


----------



## G2GUV (Dec 16, 2012)

w8pmc said:


> You're wrong my friend:chuckle:
> 
> With 1100+cc injectors the stock turbos will perform just fine up to, including & over 650bhp. Closing in on & over 700 would however be a struggle so upgraded turbos would be a sensible upgrade


NO NO NO!!!

No way - FLYNN cannot be wrong!!!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Roadrunnerrs2 said:


> 650r is 650 bhp not 600? Check SVM


650R isn't 650bhp for most owners
It's a fanciful figure quote on race gas so owners can quote a bigger number when bragging to their mates.

More like 620(ish) IMO. Like Litchfield stage 4.


----------



## swoody123 (Apr 19, 2014)

Well i must be a proper Tard and a hairdresser then..i own an R35 and race a Mx5 Mazda in the BRSCC championship..
am i happy..l'll let you decide Flynn


----------



## Silver R (Apr 23, 2013)

FLYNN said:


> I beg to differ. Probably daft DD over read, or your get your info from GTRlife
> 
> 
> 
> Without changing the compressor wheel, youre not getting 650 on pump fuel



Sorry mate but two different dyno's both read almost exact figures. Car made between 670-680hp on both. It is possible


Just re read your post, car ran 102 fuel


----------



## Stealth69 (Jan 6, 2005)

swoody123 said:


> Well i must be a proper Tard and a hairdresser then..i own an R35 and race a Mx5 Mazda in the BRSCC championship..
> am i happy..l'll let you decide Flynn


You are just like Flynn then.... R35 and a hairdresser car.... Proud of ya lol


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

G2GUV said:


> NO NO NO!!!
> 
> No way - FLYNN cannot be wrong!!!


Im not



CT17 said:


> 650R isn't 650bhp for most owners
> It's a fanciful figure quote on race gas so owners can quote a bigger number when bragging to their mates.
> 
> More like 620(ish) IMO. Like Litchfield stage 4.


Can you see a pattern forming here.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

swoody123 said:


> Well i must be a proper Tard and a hairdresser then..i own an R35 and race a Mx5 Mazda in the BRSCC championship..
> am i happy..l'll let you decide Flynn


Is the R35 a supercar?


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

swoody123 said:


> Well i must be a proper Tard and a hairdresser then..i own an R35 and race a Mx5 Mazda in the BRSCC championship..
> am i happy..l'll let you decide Flynn


'tard


----------



## Roadrunnerrs2 (Jul 14, 2013)

What I like to do, is own as many cars as possible, so I can form my own opinions based on experience, rather than trying to make ***** comments based on nothing up pent up jealously because I didn't get that pay rise or job promotion. 

Keep slugging away champ :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

Not really jealous, I've had quite a few cars in my time, and price not an issue. Generally I buy a car based on If I like it and the performance is VFM then I'll buy it. I would love to buy an aventador but their not worth the money and lose too much in the first couple of years

I have a Gtr so I can drive it to the max on the road or the track without worrying about it. 
I think you need to talk to SVM or Litchfields, standard turbos's can get 650...and above it's all about reliability, fuelling and CHARGE temps!

Do you sell cocktails in your bar:chuckle:


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Where is Colonel Mustard? You mean Chronos? Lmao :chuckle:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

FRRACER said:


> Where is Colonel Mustard? You mean Chronos? Lmao :chuckle:


Not Chronos. The bloke with the mustard car that argues with himself


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

My 650r made 610 on the rollers so all a load of bull really
Now much quicker with litchfield stage 4 or whatever but still reckon it's only around 620 for what it's worth


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

FLYNN said:


> Not Chronos. The bloke with the mustard car that argues with himself


Brilliant!! :chuckle:

What has happened to Chronos? I have been pretty busy of late and I think I have missed some entertainment.


----------



## BigBen (Aug 18, 2012)

FLYNN said:


> What a surprise


Exactly what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

Naming and shaming of all Tards?


----------



## ASH-R35 (Jun 7, 2013)

Damn Flynn...you must be seriously bored with your r8, and indeed with life in general to continue this troll fest....


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

ASH-R35 said:


> Damn Flynn...you must be seriously bored with your r8, and indeed with life in general to continue this troll fest....


Yes. Being bored of a car, and life in general is directly connected with making posts on forums. 

How did you piece it all together? That's some fine work there, Columbo


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

FLYNN said:


> Not without modifying the turbos bud. The stock items run out of steam at 630-640


Do you have any maths to support this?
I don't know if the figures owners/tuners claim are right but I will be finding out for myself.

And what year of car are you referring too?

I've seen a number of GTRs fall short of their tuners claims when put on a Dyno not used by that specific tuner, in fact one of the tuners on this forum went as far as swapping reg plates on a customers car to get a Dyno figure to match their extortionate bill.

But it's the same for any other make/model you come across.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

I know of only 1 car that made 650bhp on standard turbos, but that was running a lot more than a 650r conversion. Cannot find the thread anymore, which is a shame


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> I beg to differ. Probably daft DD over read, or your get your info from GTRlife
> 
> Without changing the compressor wheel, youre not getting 650 on pump fuel


Well you're wrong, so deal with it:chuckle:

I know of at least 3 GT-R's at/over 650 running stock turbos.

My car was running an SVM 650R conversion but without downpipes & was just shy of 630bhp so with downpipes it would be safe to say you'd see 650. That was also with only 900cc injectors. If the fuel pumps had been changed it would have been nearer 660.

I'm sure like most you don't like being wrong but i'm afraid my friend that facts are facts.

Totally agree that much North of there on stock turbos is tricky but 650 isn't.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> Well you're wrong, so deal with it:chuckle:
> 
> I know of at least 3 GT-R's at/over 650 running stock turbos.
> 
> ...


Ummmm, you cant just add BHP because you are changing parts.... 

As I said above, I know of 1 car that made 650bhp on standard turbos, but that was running intercooler, fuel system, SYVECs ecu, etc. If I remember correctly, it made 651 or 653 at SRR (not sure about fuel, could have been 102).


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

CT17 said:


> 650R isn't 650bhp for most owners
> It's a fanciful figure quote on race gas so owners can quote a bigger number when bragging to their mates.
> 
> More like 620(ish) IMO. Like Litchfield stage 4.


This is correct but some cars have achieved on & over 650 on stock turbos which was the point being debated by our 'friend'. Agreed they're not necessarily running just the SVM 650R & perhaps on 102 octane fuel, however cars are on/over 650bhp with stock turbos.

As above, mine was RR'd at 630 with an SVM 650R conversion but without downpipes so with downpipes & uprated fuel pumps i'd be 100% confident she'd have made 650 or just over on 98/99ron fuel.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Are all the turbos the same?
2007 - 2014


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

grahamc said:


> Ummmm, you cant just add BHP because you are changing parts....
> 
> As I said above, I know of 1 car that made 650bhp on standard turbos, but that was running intercooler, fuel system, SYVECs ecu, etc. If I remember correctly, it made 651 or 653 at SRR.


I agree totally but it was running stock turbos so proves that our 'friends' CAN'T statement is as was blatantly obvious incorrect.

No way i can quote what aftermarket downpipes & uprated fuel pumps would or wouldn't have done to my MY10 as i never had this work done, but given the gains i've heard on this forum for just DP's i'd be confident my car would have made just over 650 with them installed given it was RR'd at 630 without, but we'll never really know for sure.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

w8pmc said:


> but given the gains i've heard on this forum for just DP's i'd be confident my car would have made just over 650


Has anyone actually tested the claimed gains?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Has anyone actually tested the claimed gains?


A few on here (but could have been a while ago as i sold my GT-R 3 years ago) had just cat-back systems 7 remaps that they had RR'd & then added DP's later whilst getting the cars RR'd again & the increase from the DP's was around 20bhp. Pretty sure a couple were close to 18 & a couple 21-22 but i guess it would have been dependant on DP manufacturer as some were Milltek & some GTC Titan's.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Do you have any maths to support this?
> I don't know if the figures owners/tuners claim are right but I will be finding out for myself.
> 
> And what year of car are you referring too?
> ...


I don't have anything to support it other than being told by a few different tuners. One of which I trust to the point of putting money on it. SVM, and Litchfield packages also seem to support this. Both they top packages on pump fuel don't make over 620hp

Maybe someone with a bit more technical knowledge may comment. 

Without modifying the stock turbos, you are not going to see those figures on pump fuel.

Some people are just blinkered

Will be interesting to see what you find out


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> A few on here (but could have been a while ago as i sold my GT-R 3 years ago) had just cat-back systems 7 remaps that they had RR'd & then added DP's later whilst getting the cars RR'd again & the increase from the DP's was around 20bhp. Pretty sure a couple were close to 18 & a couple 21-22 but i guess it would have been dependant on DP manufacturer as some were Milltek & some GTC Titan's.


:chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Has anyone actually tested the claimed gains?


Lots of people. Stocks turbos cant do 650 on pump fuel


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> I agree totally but it was running stock turbos so proves that our 'friends' CAN'T statement is as was blatantly obvious incorrect.
> 
> No way i can quote what aftermarket downpipes & uprated fuel pumps would or wouldn't have done to my MY10 as i never had this work done, but given the gains i've heard on this forum for just DP's i'd be confident my car would have made just over 650 with them installed given it was RR'd at 630 without, but we'll never really know for sure.


In fact, I was wrong.... it made 644bhp. 
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/172144-svm-102mm-v-hks-spec-r-exhaust-test.html

With Syvecs!!


----------



## Johnny G (Aug 10, 2012)

I've got Stage 4, downpipes and SRD FMIC and several map revisions. I'm running more timing that most because of the FMIC and I'm on 638bhp. Without race fuel/E85 and lots more timing, there's no way a stock turbo will reliably push 650bhp. They can't support the boost at 6000rpm and above, and they drop boost to 1bar from 1.5ish in the midrange. You can't run more in the midrange or your torque will snap the rods. 
It's a sad fact of GTR ownership, and a real first-world problem.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Johnny G said:


> I've got Stage 4, downpipes and SRD FMIC and several map revisions. I'm running more timing that most because of the FMIC and I'm on 638bhp. Without race fuel/E85 and lots more timing, there's no way a stock turbo will reliably push 650bhp. They can't support the boost at 6000rpm and above, and they drop boost to 1bar from 1.5ish in the midrange. You can't run more in the midrange or *your torque will snap the rods*.
> It's a sad fact of GTR ownership, and a real first-world problem.


Exactly and in the thread I posted above, Jamie was about to have an engine build done, was not really worried about running too much torque.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

grahamc said:


> In fact, I was wrong.... it made 644bhp.
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/172144-svm-102mm-v-hks-spec-r-exhaust-test.html
> 
> 
> With Syvecs!!



Not quite 650hp. With Syvecs as well. I suppose that was pushing the stock turbos as far as they'll go. I don't think that was on pump fuel either

Thanks graham. 




Johnny G said:


> I've got Stage 4, downpipes and SRD FMIC and several map revisions. I'm running more timing that most because of the FMIC and I'm on 638bhp. Without race fuel/E85 and lots more timing, there's no way a stock turbo will reliably push 650bhp. They can't support the boost at 6000rpm and above, and they drop boost to 1bar from 1.5ish in the midrange. You can't run more in the midrange or your torque will snap the rods.
> It's a sad fact of GTR ownership, and a real first-world problem.


Cheers Johnny.

It's tough being right all the time :chuckle:


----------



## Grimson (Aug 30, 2011)

My old 2012 almost made 650 with the 650R package + 102mm exhaust on V-Power.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9141/ar12gtr.jpg

It didn't run great with that tune though and was later retuned to this:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3589/jpsvm650rdyno.jpg

Sold it now though and like Flynn have ordered an R8, I went for the mens version though and got a manual V10 Coupe :chuckle:

Just need UGR to come to the UK and turbo it!


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Grimson said:


> My old 2012 almost made 650 with the 650R package + 102mm exhaust on V-Power.
> 
> http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9141/ar12gtr.jpg
> 
> ...


Good choice


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Not quite 650hp. With Syvecs as well. I suppose that was pushing the stock turbos as far as they'll go. I don't think that was on pump fuel either
> 
> Thanks graham.
> 
> ...


You'd not know as you're not. Not even most of the time:bowdown1:

The Turbo is i agree a limiter but 650 is not the magic number as a few cars (proven) have gone over 650 on stock turbos in the UK & elsewhere so i'm afraid as usual you're wrong.

That said, i can't confirm how reliable those cars have been & how risky pushing over 650 may or may not have been but you said it CAN'T be done & i'm afraid it can & has been several times.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Grimson said:


> My old 2012 almost made 650 with the 650R package + 102mm exhaust on V-Power.
> 
> http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9141/ar12gtr.jpg


And you seriously believed those figures at 30% mission losses?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Grimson said:


> My old 2012 almost made 650 with the 650R package + 102mm exhaust on V-Power.
> 
> http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9141/ar12gtr.jpg
> 
> ...


Niiice. Whereabouts in Norfolk as i'm in Stowmarket every couple of weeks?

Looking forward to going out in a Capristo V10 & Heffner TT V10 at Spa in 2 weeks.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Grimson said:


> Just need UGR to come to the UK and turbo it!


Try Doug at MRC tuning.
They did my Audi and 911.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

matt j said:


> And you seriously believed those figures at 30% mission losses?


Correct of not, still didn't make 650

I would say the numbers, are on the generous side


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

FLYNN said:


> Not quite 650hp. With Syvecs as well. I suppose that was pushing the stock turbos as far as they'll go. I don't think that was on pump fuel either
> 
> Thanks graham.
> 
> ...


No not quite, and he was having an engine build, so was willing to push the torque figure.



Grimson said:


> My old 2012 almost made 650 with the 650R package + 102mm exhaust on V-Power.
> 
> http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9141/ar12gtr.jpg
> 
> ...


Torque seems rather low, touch above 600, if Im reading that right. 

Mine makes 610/610 at SRR.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

grahamc said:


> No not quite, and he was having an engine build, so was willing to push the torque figure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers graham

So even with a built engine a tuner like SVM couldn't see 650. Even on race fuel.

A good read. Thank you

I suspect that wont be good enough to some though.

Maybe they should open up their own garages


----------



## Grimson (Aug 30, 2011)

matt j said:


> And you seriously believed those figures at 30% mission losses?


That dyno is pretty well known for giving book bhp figures on stock cars but reads torque a bit low for some reason.

Not too bothered about the accuracy, was just happy that my results on their computer were higher than any other GTR at the time from any tuner that they had run.



w8pmc said:


> Niiice. Whereabouts in Norfolk as i'm in Stowmarket every couple of weeks?
> 
> Looking forward to going out in a Capristo V10 & Heffner TT V10 at Spa in 2 weeks.


North of Norwich towards the coast. Don't have the car yet as I wanted my own spec and not a lot of options with used manuals so ordered new, build date is next month.

As for TT, that is way off and a pipe dream! May be if SVM could deal with UGR :chuckle:


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

in fairness I don't think any tuner should be claiming any figures on various stages of tune as there are simply to many variables to take into consideration with individual cars and dyno's they are tested on.
the whole thing is just a massive sales gimmick to boost trade that's the fact of it

weve been modding certain cars for years although be it old school stuff from the 90s mainly and we only give approximate figures on cars relating to the individual parts fitted but you may get two cars with exactly the same parts fitted but one may make 50bhp less than the other so its crazy to be quoting people certain figures when they may take the car somewhere else for a dyno run on a different day under different conditions on a dyno that may under or over estimate the results and that's all it is..........an estimation!

I haven't got a clue what the limits of a stock turbo are on the gtr as every turbo has a cfm maximum rating and no matter how much boost you run if it reaches its maximum cfm then that's it, it cannot produce any more air into the cylinders.
by adding more fuel you can keep cylinder temps down which then allows you to cheat and run more ignition advance whilst coming onto boost and at wot which will increase power no doubt for the dyno junkies but then your engine will be at huge risk of det and / or borewash at certain rpm increments so not really a very good idea for an engine if you want it to survive in the longterm

so in a nutshell I have to agree with mr flynny and say hes pretty much spot on with his quotes on a safe running engine at around 620-630 with stock turbos
yes they may be capable of more by cheating and dialling in more ignition but its at your expense at the end of the day


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

pulsarboby said:


> so in a nutshell I have to agree with mr flynny and say hes pretty much spot on with his quotes on a safe running engine at around 620-630 with stock turbos
> yes they may be capable of more by cheating and dialling in more ignition but its at your expense at the end of the day


Indeed. This has been the general consensus for some time now.

Cheers for the validation


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

FLYNN said:


> Cheers graham
> 
> So even with a built engine a tuner like SVM couldn't see 650. Even on race fuel.
> 
> ...


Engine was not built yet.... just meant that he was willing to run more torque than most others due to knowing that the engine would be built in the next few weeks.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

Grimson said:


> Not too bothered about the accuracy, was just happy that my results on their computer were higher than any other GTR at the time from any tuner that they had run.


So their tactic worked on you, make it read higher and one happy customer... :chuckle:


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Grimson said:


> Not too bothered about the accuracy, was just happy that my results on their computer were higher than any other GTR at the time from any tuner that they had run.


Seriously?


----------



## Grimson (Aug 30, 2011)

matt j said:


> So their tactic worked on you, make it read higher and one happy customer... :chuckle:





CT17 said:


> Seriously?


Well the car was tuned by Ben and I didn't tell him or SVM I was going to dyno it the next day so nothing was done other than a road tune the previous day.

Happy to be the top of PowerStation R35 numbers at the time? Yes of course, why is that a problem?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Grimson said:


> Happy to be the top of PowerStation R35 numbers at the time? Yes of course, why is that a problem?


I just don't understand a statement saying you don't care if the result is accurate as long as you are at the top.

But we all get our kicks different ways.


----------



## Grimson (Aug 30, 2011)

CT17 said:


> I just don't understand a statement saying you don't care if the result is accurate as long as you are at the top.
> 
> But we all get our kicks different ways.


If all the results from every car on that dyno are wrong, and I am not saying they are but they could be. Being happy about being the top of all those results at least means something was right with the car. 

For example, another car on there had 595bhp and was not stock, if that car really was making say 575bhp (who knows) then my 645bhp could still have been making 625bhp, still more than them.

Meaning whatever my car was doing it was doing it better than the others even if the numbers were generous. They were generous for everyone and not just me.

But I still think that dyno reads bhp well, just torque is off.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

its very difficult to gauge how accurate any dyno really is, abbey have tested a stock 09 r35 on there dynapack and it made iirc 432 at all 4 hubs so adding 53 hp to there hub figures is a fair assumption to get crank power, I know people say they make 500 blah blah blah but Nissan quote 485 so that's what I work on. 

look for a stock car run on your chosen dyno that's the best way imo, dyno dynamics are normally very close though imo for there flywheel projection with the wheel figure actually being lower than it really is so a much bigger correction needed compared to a hub dyno to get a crank guesstimate. 

as long as the dyno operator is using the tool correctly with din or sae j1349 cf, and the temp probe isn't in a cup of tea lol


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Grimson said:


> But I still think that dyno reads bhp well, just torque is off.


Bit confused how that maths would work...


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

scoooby slayer said:


> its very difficult to gauge how accurate any dyno really is, abbey have tested a stock 09 r35 on there dynapack and it made iirc 432 at all 4 hubs so adding 53 hp to there hub figures is a fair assumption to get crank power, I know people say they make 500 blah blah blah but Nissan quote 485 so that's what I work on.


The quote is wrong so you are working from flawed figures.
As discussed before transmision losses are unlikely to be 53bhp in a four wheel drive car.

Making a calculation using exactly proven figures from one source and then plucking another figure out of thin air that Nissan quote which is widely known to be incorrect seems flawed.

MY MY11 stage 2 made under 500 at the hubs (at Abbey) when running in a well proven 570bhp set up.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Bit confused how that maths would work...


my thoughts exactly lmao, considering hp is just a measure of torque / 5252 x rpm


----------



## Grimson (Aug 30, 2011)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Bit confused how that maths would work...


Just trying to remember what the guys there were saying at the time.

The flywheel torque figure isn't as accurate as the calculated flywheel bhp figure and something about the wheel bhp figure being very accurate but not comparable to single rollers due to the extra drag on the wheels which on run down made it very accurate.

Been over a year since I was last there and can't exactly remember what it all was.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

CT17 said:


> The quote is wrong so you are working from flawed figures.
> As discussed before transmision losses are unlikely to be 53bhp in a four wheel drive car.
> 
> Making a calculation using exactly proven figures from one source and then plucking another figure out of thin air that Nissan quote which is widely known to be incorrect seems flawed.
> ...



if you choose to work on the 500 hp for a n 09 car (which I don't) then it means 68 hp trans losses, its still ALOT less than any roller dyno correction and it needs to be, no dyno is accurate to the last hp imo, ive had arguments on here where certain people were adding 20%+ to dynapack figures which is silly imo those are roller corrections not hub.


by the method of over 70 hp trans losses on abbeys dynapack so a stock 09 car is running well over 500 crank hp then ? if that's the case why are the newer cars so much quicker at just 550 hp ? it doesn't add up to me.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

scoooby slayer said:


> by the method of over 70 hp trans losses on abbeys dynapack so a stock 09 car is running well over 500 crank hp then ? if that's the case why are the newer cars so much quicker at just 550 hp ? it doesn't add up to me.


They aren't that much quicker in a straight line when rolling, hardly anything in it.

The later cars (MY11+) have better launch control, around 10% more downforce, bigger brakes, revised suspension etc... All of which makes them quicker in most conditions.

My MY11 as stated ran about 494bhp on the Abbey Hub Dyno.
According to Litchfield on the road setting (remember this is two years ago) it should have been making around 570bhp.

Abbey's figure was exactly from a hub dyno and Litchfield are pretty spot on with their power claims on the menu based tuning system as they've done loads.

So that loss of 76bhp I consider quite accurate.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Well my 2010 car was dyno'd at SRR at 1200 miles with no mods at all and made 499bhp.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

CT17 said:


> They aren't that much quicker in a straight line when rolling, hardly anything in it.
> 
> The later cars (MY11+) have better launch control, around 10% more downforce, bigger brakes, revised suspension etc... All of which makes them quicker in most conditions.
> 
> ...


if those corrections are true for advanced motorsport and engineerings dynapack then my car makes 888 crank hp on pump and 1004 crank hp on e50, unless those corrections have to be reduced as the power hikes up......


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

grahamc said:


> Well my 2010 car was dyno'd at SRR at 1200 miles with no mods at all and made 499bhp.


is that crank figure shootout mode ?


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> is that crank figure shootout mode ?


Not sure...crank yes, mode, whatever SRR runs as standard.......


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

CT17 said:


> They aren't that much quicker in a straight line when rolling, hardly anything in it.


Does anyone have any 30-130 mph data for the older cars?
I can test mine for comparision.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

scoooby slayer said:


> unless those corrections have to be reduced as the power hikes up......


Losses increase as power increases but in a non-linear relationship.
20% losses at stock will not be 20% losses when tuned.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

Losses obviously do increase with additional power (the fact that the rollers and retarders get hotter is the defining factor) - but how much is so car/model specific.
Different tyre pressures will create different losses. As would strapping the car down differently.

All dyno's work on an application of maths.
The losses added to a GTO, Evo and GTR will all be the same according to a Dyno Dynamics (which is by far my preferred dyno).
IE Shoot_44 will add a certain percentage, Shoot_6F will add something different.

Repeatable figures is all I care about and I find Dyno Dynamics the best for that.

The ONLY way we will know the true losses is to engine dyno a car then chassis dyno it.
We (a GTOOC member, myself and Eurospec) are currently in the process of doing that with one of our 1000 BHP cars.

We will know the loss/correction factor on the Dyno Dynamics Vs the Maths that Dyno Dynamics use.

And then we have inertia dynos, let’s not get me started on that topic! :runaway:


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

grahamc said:


> Not sure...crank yes, mode, whatever SRR runs as standard.......


Charlie usually uses Shoot_44, but if you post the graph I can tell you.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Cheers graham
> 
> So even with a built engine a tuner like SVM couldn't see 650. Even on race fuel.
> 
> ...


Loving your high levels of ignorance & stupidity so will leave you in your bubble. But the fact stands that several R35 GT-R's have made over 650bhp ON stock Turbos. That my friend is fact so please prove me wrong?

I've at no point said a 650R conversion would make 650, that's someone else's debate, mine is purely around stock turbos. I've no idea whether the few that are on stock turbos & over 650bhp were running race fuel, what additional mods they may have had or even if the RR was a touch on the keen side, however it stands that the cars are out there.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> Charlie usually uses Shoot_44, but if you post the graph I can tell you.


Have not uploaded the picture, so will try and remember to have a look this evening when I get home.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> :chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:


In your company i most certainly am:GrowUp:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Indeed. This has been the general consensus for some time now.
> 
> Cheers for the validation


Do you read your posts before hitting the Submit Reply button?

I too would tend to agree with PB, but you my friend said CAN'T & i said CAN. Given the cars exist, the CAN wins. Perhaps they do have a more limited lifespan compared to those on stock turbos at say 630, but they're certainly out there & i didn't here of any going bang.

That's not to say some may have since then upgraded the Turbos but the simple fact is you CAN get to over 650 on stock & it HAS been done several times.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> Do you read your posts before hitting the Submit Reply button?
> 
> I too would tend to agree with PB, but you my friend said CAN'T & i said CAN. Given the cars exist, the CAN wins. Perhaps they do have a more limited lifespan compared to those on stock turbos at say 630, but they're certainly out there & i didn't here of any going bang.
> 
> That's not to say some may have since then upgraded the Turbos but the simple fact is you CAN get to over 650 on stock & it HAS been done several times.


Poor lad, desperately clutching at straws :chuckle:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Poor lad, desperately clutching at straws :chuckle:


Perhaps you should change your 'pointless' thread title:GrowUp:

I've no need to & as per the White GT-R thread, facts my little friend are facts & the great thing about facts is you can't (or in your case shouldn't) argue against them. That said you are certainly a source of amusement for me so by all means continueopcorn:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Grimson said:


> That dyno is pretty well known for giving book bhp figures on stock cars but reads torque a bit low for some reason.
> 
> Not too bothered about the accuracy, was just happy that my results on their computer were higher than any other GTR at the time from any tuner that they had run.
> 
> ...


Cool, let me know when you get it as would love a gander. Should be good fun with a Manual box. 

The TT Heffner R8 V10 is just insane & by far the quickest car i've ever had the pleasure of being out in. The Capristo is possibly the best sounding R8 so a great combo of R8's.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> Perhaps you should change your 'pointless' thread title:GrowUp:
> 
> I've no need to & as per the White GT-R thread, facts my little friend are facts & the great thing about facts is you can't (or in your case shouldn't) argue against them. That said you are certainly a source of amusement for me so by all means continueopcorn:


:chuckle:

You know you've won, when people start talking about "facts"

:chuckle:


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> facts my little friend are facts & the great thing about facts is you can't (or in your case shouldn't) argue against them.


I'd be interested to see a plot showing over 650bhp with stock turbos, on pump fuel and without claiming 30% mission losses. As it's apparently factual and available, I look forward to seeing it as that would be a nice mod to have!


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

matt j said:


> I'd be interested to see a plot showing over 650bhp with stock turbos, on pump fuel and without claiming 30% mission losses. As it's apparently factual and available, I look forward to seeing it as that would be a nice mod to have!


I would too. More likely of seeing Josef Fritzel in Celebrity Big Brother


----------



## Silver R (Apr 23, 2013)

w8pmc said:


> Cool, let me know when you get it as would love a gander. Should be good fun with a Manual box.
> 
> 
> 
> The TT Heffner R8 V10 is just insane & by far the quickest car i've ever had the pleasure of being out in. The Capristo is possibly the best sounding R8 so a great combo of R8's.



Nigel's car is quick, at vmax on the back straight he passed me around 150ish.


----------



## swoody123 (Apr 19, 2014)

FLYNN said:


> Is the R35 a supercar?


yep..its super cos its mine..


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> I would too. More likely of seeing Josef Fritzel in Celebrity Big Brother


This fella is quoting his GT-R is dyno proven at 660+bhp & it's apparently on stock turbos as is quoting the 650R conversion (which doesn't include revised turbos) & i can't see mention of turbos on his list.

NISSAN GT-R R35 BLACK EDITION SVM 650R STUNNING 660BHP STAGE 4.25 HUGE SPEC+FSH | eBay


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Jesus H Christ. This is getting embarrassing 

Ebay....Your using ebay as proof

PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Must be right then.

Another example. 
My old car up for sale

Stock Turbos 720+ hp

Must be true then

Nissan Gt-R 3.8 Premium 2dr Auto

Not one tuner quotes over 650hp for stock turbos, and if they did they'd be laughed at.

Stop it now please. Honestly. You're making yourself look like a 'tard..............

...........................Actually carry on.......that's the whole point of this thread


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Jesus H Christ. This is getting embarrassing
> 
> Ebay....Your using ebay as proof
> 
> ...


Really? I think you've more than proved that mantle in most of your threads.

I'm not in any way saying that particular eBay vehicle is proof, but the owner states it is dyno proven at 660+ with stock turbos if i'm reading the listing correctly. You have no proof to argue otherwise though do you?

I said that cars with over 650bhp on stock turbos exist & we both know that they're out there. Now perhaps they have limited lifespans & perhaps it's not well advised, however the simple fact is that they DO exist unless of course everyone apart from you is a liar.

Now i agree it's perhaps not the right thing to do & i also agree that MOST not all tuners would probably nowadays advise against it, however the point is made that they have & do exist which was the ONLY point i was making.

As you've too known GT-R's for some time, i'm sure even you'd agree that the tuning industry for these cars has matured significantly in the last couple of years & thus in that time you're perhaps correct that no such cars have been created for a while, but that was never my point.

Tard awayopcorn:


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

FLYNN said:


> ....
> 
> Ebay....Your using ebay as proof
> 
> .....


I did laugh at that :runaway:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> I said that cars with over 650bhp on stock turbos exist


Only in the heads of the retarded and your head is that far up your own arse, its actually back in the same place again.................although now covered in shit


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

matt j said:


> I'd be interested to see a plot showing over 650bhp with stock turbos, on pump fuel and without claiming 30% mission losses. As it's apparently factual and available, I look forward to seeing it as that would be a nice mod to have!



the highest plot ive seen was Jamie p stage 4 syvecs and 102mm exhaust on surrey rr so not silly generous and it made 644 hp, 660 lbft.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Only in the heads of the retarded and your head is that far up your own arse, its actually back in the same place again.................although now covered in shit


You must really hate being wrong but hey ho i guess you've got used to it by now. The world needs people like you


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> the highest plot ive seen was Jamie p stage 4 syvecs and 102mm exhaust on surrey rr so not silly generous and it made 644 hp, 660 lbft.


Not 650 though is it 

.....anyway, that was on race fuel, not pump


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

grahamc said:


> I did laugh at that :runaway:


Me too but the seller said he has the output dyno proven. He could of course be lying but i'm sure the purchaser would have asked to see those plots so am giving the seller the benefit of the doubt in that they do exist.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

All this just proves the whole thread.

Im at peace


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> the highest plot ive seen was Jamie p stage 4 syvecs and 102mm exhaust on surrey rr so not silly generous and it made 644 hp, 660 lbft.


So of course an additional 6bhp is a ridiculous expectation FLYNNy?

Do stock turbos have a shut down mechanism at 649bhp? If this IS the case then i'm sorry i missed that detail & you are therefore correct?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

FLYNN said:


> All this just proves the whole thread.
> 
> Im at peace


Has it occurred to you that you are arguing on the internet with a man you've never met about a car you don't even own.

Who's the 'tard again exactly?


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Mookistar said:


> Has it occurred to you that you are arguing on the internet with a man you've never met about a car you don't even own.
> 
> Who's the 'tard again exactly?


Looks like Ive rattled someones feathers :chuckle:


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> So of course an additional 6bhp is a ridiculous expectation FLYNNy?
> 
> Do stock turbos have a shut down mechanism at 649bhp? If this IS the case then i'm sorry i missed that detail & you are therefore correct?


Race fuel anyway. Doesn't count. Please re read the thread.

They cant do 650 on pump fuel. They dont have the capability 

Please try and keep up


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

What is the UK record for:
Stock turbos with pump fuel (by pump I mean max 99 Octane)
Stock tubos with race gas

And I'll ask this one again:
Are all of the turbos the same 2007 - 2014?


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

FLYNN said:


> Not 650 though is it
> 
> .....anyway, that was on race fuel, not pump


I didn't mention 650 I don't know what they can make stock, I know what they can make with some mods though 

im not sure but I thought that 644 of jps was on pump fuel ? before he went on race mix ? he was 631 prior to 102mm exhaust which seems feasible on pump fuel.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> What is the UK record for:
> Stock turbos with pump fuel (by pump I mean max 99 Octane)
> Stock tubos with race gas
> 
> ...


The believe the actual turbos are identical, I believe turbo inlet is bigger on DBA 

If a tuner could tell me 650hp is a realistic achievable target on pump fuel, ill hold my hands up, but from owning and reading about the cars for several years, Im quite sure they cant


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> I didn't mention 650 I don't know what they can make stock, I know what they can make with some mods though
> 
> im not sure but I thought that 644 of jps was on pump fuel ? before he went on race mix ? he was 631 prior to 102mm exhaust which seems feasible on pump fuel.


Absolutely.

630 is achievable. I dont deny that


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Not 650 though is it
> 
> .....anyway, that was on race fuel, not pump


Ooh, was that a goal post i heard moving?

Here's one on here:

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/175039-nissan-gt-r-black-edition-650bhp-warranty-team-khan-39-995-a.html

Not a fan of the wrap but hey ho:

Lot 1 - TOP CAR AUCTION 11 Nissan GT-R R35 04 BENTLEY ARNAGE 06 DISCOVERY 3, 09 LEXUS 63 GOLF GTD - Midland Asset Management - BidSpotter.co.uk

To be fair it does only say approx:

Nissan R35 GTR Stage 4 + Downpipes "650R" Tuning Pack

I conclude that none of the above proves the point as they could be lying.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

scoooby slayer said:


> I didn't mention 650 I don't know what they can make stock, I know what they can make with some mods though
> 
> im not sure but I thought that 644 of jps was on pump fuel ? before he went on race mix ? he was 631 prior to 102mm exhaust which seems feasible on pump fuel.


I concur that i also though Jamie's was on pump fuel but i can't find the posts so can't be 100% sure.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> The believe the actual turbos are identical, I believe turbo inlet is bigger on DBA
> 
> If a tuner could tell me 650hp is a realistic achievable target on pump fuel, ill hold my hands up, but from owning and reading about the cars for several years, Im quite sure they cant


& FLYNN, i'm not & have never said it's realistic, all i said is it has been done as the cars are out there.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

FLYNN said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> 630 is achievable. I dont deny that


I have it direct from the horses mouth 644 hp on pump fuel untouched motor, v power only, syvecs and 102mm exhaust 644 hp, 660 lbft on srr


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

scoooby slayer said:


> I didn't mention 650 I don't know what they can make stock, I know what they can make with some mods though
> 
> im not sure but I thought that 644 of jps was on pump fuel ? before he went on race mix ? he was 631 prior to 102mm exhaust which seems feasible on pump fuel.


I think you may be right, but both runs were with the Syvecs. 

I think we are back to arguing about dynos :repost: :runaway: and on a realistic dyno, I seriously doubt anyone is going to beat JamieP.



scoooby slayer said:


> I have it direct from the horses mouth 644 hp on pump fuel untouched motor, v power only, syvecs and 102mm exhaust 644 hp, 660 lbft on srr


Cool, but he was not worried about breaking the engine.... as it was a few weeks away from being rebuilt


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> & FLYNN, i'm not & have never said it's realistic, all i said is it has been done as the cars are out there.


Rubbish. You said all of them do. 

Do you even understand the amount they would have pushed JamieP car to get to 644. 

You don't. You get get more than 100% out of something. They can only run so much boost. 

Next youll be showing me bhp readings off an iPhone app, or perhaps some more ebay auctions.

Again, this forum. 

:chuckle:





FLYNN said:


> Youre not getting 650hp from stock turbos Im afraid. They come up a little short


Im right, you're wrong.

Get over it and move on.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

grahamc said:


> I think you may be right, but both runs were with the Syvecs.
> 
> I think we are back to arguing about dynos :repost: :runaway:
> 
> ...


yes graham all syvecs and biggest best flowing exhaust around I think at the time so really maximising the turbos, and on a dyno that's certainly not known for being very generous, a fair assumption to say those turbos would of been flat at with jp at the helm so 644 hp a good guide for absolute hp limit id of thought, does prove they are gonna fall short of 650 hp aswell even in the highest of stress tune.


dyno arguments, wheres glenn with 22% correction for a dynapack :runaway: lmao


----------



## Silver R (Apr 23, 2013)

GTO NEMESIS said:


> What is the UK record for:
> Stock turbos with pump fuel (by pump I mean max 99 Octane)
> Stock tubos with race gas
> 
> ...



Scottish car ran 670hp on c85 with stage 4, 90 mm down pipes and turbo suction pipes. Car backed up the dyno with a rather impressive 1/4 mile time to.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Rubbish. You said all of them do.
> 
> Do you even understand the amount they would have pushed JamieP car to get to 644.
> 
> ...


Where did i say that my friend? Someone else made reference to whether a Tuners 650R conversion actually makes 650. You know i'm right & it's starting to pain you now, but i can totally understand why that would be the case

My only point was you said you CAN'T go over 650bhp on Stock Turbos & i said you can as i knew of a few cars a while back (when i had my car) that had & unless those owners are lying, then i'm correct.

I also said my GT-R was running 630bhp comfortably without downpipes & the GTC tune was far from aggressive & i'm sure at the time i only had 900cc injectors (although it has 1100cc now i believe). I 100% trust the dyno i was on as have used it many times.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Knight Racer and thus SVM tuning options always quote power on Race fuel.

Much as I love power graphs, we really should stick to quoting power at the wheels, since dyno dynamics fixed percentage for drivetrain losses really shouldn't be considered representative. I think it may well be ok at close to stock numbers, but there's no way at 1000 at the wheels the drivetrain losses are 220bhp!

Either we use a proper acceptable dyno standard that measures drivetrain losses in a way that we trust or we compare power at the wheels.

Whatever we do, the 650R,850R etc. SVM nomenclature is on Race fuel not v-power.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> Knight Racer and thus SVM tuning options always quote power on Race fuel.
> 
> Much as I love power graphs, we really should stick to quoting power at the wheels, since dyno dynamics fixed percentage for drivetrain losses really shouldn't be considered representative. I think it may well be ok at close to stock numbers, but there's no way at 1000 at the wheels the drivetrain losses are 220bhp!
> 
> ...


That is a very good point & i concur that i've no idea if the quoted stock turbo 650+bhp cars out there were dyno'd using race fuel or not.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> My only point was you said you CAN'T go over 650bhp on Stock Turbos & i said you can as i knew of a few cars a while back (when i had my car) that had & unless those owners are lying, then i'm correct.


If they aren't lying, then I suspect dodgy rolling road readouts


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> My only point was you said you CAN'T go over 650bhp on Stock Turbos & i said you can as i knew of a few cars a while back (when i had my car) that had & unless those owners are lying, then i'm correct.


You're only evidence is an ebay add and word of mouth. I've asked you (or anyone else) to provide proof, on pump fuel (99RON) without claiming 30% transmission losses that 650+ can be made from stock turbos?


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

w8pmc said:


> Where did i say that my friend? Someone else made reference to whether a Tuners 650R conversion actually makes 650. You know i'm right & it's starting to pain you now, but i can totally understand why that would be the case
> 
> My only point was you said you CAN'T go over 650bhp on Stock Turbos & i said you can as i knew of a few cars a while back (when i had my car) that had & unless those owners are lying, then i'm correct.
> 
> I also said my GT-R was running 630bhp comfortably without downpipes & the GTC tune was far from aggressive & i'm sure at the time i only had 900cc injectors (although it has 1100cc now i believe). I 100% trust the dyno i was on as have used it many times.


The point now, is that a lot of dynos "over-estimate" the power figure, which is why technically you are both correct. 

If you use any old dyno, etc, then I am sure the stock turbos will hit 700+bhp.
If you use a reputable one, then there is no chance of breaking 650bhp. 

Its not necessarily the owners lying, its the people that run the dyno that "up" the power by changing the fudge factor so that owners are happier with the result. The power figure achieved though, is NOT real!


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

matt j said:


> You're only evidence is an ebay add and word of mouth. I've asked you (or anyone else) to provide proof, on pump fuel (99RON) without claiming 30% transmission losses that 650+ can be made from stock turbos?





grahamc said:


> The point now, is that a lot of dynos "over-estimate" the power figure, which is why technically you are both correct.
> 
> If you use any old dyno, etc, then I am sure the stock turbos will hit 700+bhp.
> If you use a reputable one, then there is no chance of breaking 650bhp.
> ...


You see w8pmc, its not just me


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

And an old article by Fuggles



Fuggles said:


> Actually I found it and had already uploaded it to the GTROC website.
> General News and Events ? GTROC
> It may not be perfect but as a general introduction it should be helpful to anyone wanting to know more. Remember BHP can be measured in four ways - depending who you're talking to;
> *ATF *- At the Flywheel
> ...


----------



## R35_owner (Jun 3, 2014)

What a useless thread R8 is a TT's older brother same as rest of family slow and overrated :wavey:


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Dyno's are good but you really cant compare one to the other or even one day to another day on the same dyno. As Arcam kept reminding me the only way to check for sure is to pull the engine out and use an engine dyno. 

I remember one of my friends did a hub dyno and was quoted over 660bhp. I also did a dyno run at Andy's with a few others and got about 625hp aprox (not sure if you were there w8pmc). At the wales event last year we did a head to head and I passed him and was also pulling away at the mile marker. Also had a confirmed faster trap speed. He was running 102mm svm exhaust and I 90mm Russ fellows. 

The other way to get a good indication is trap speed but it's not really going to give you BHP. This a moot argument as no one will really know unless as above you pull the engine out.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Just thought of a great mod. Install an electric air conditioning unit and connect it to your intakes, then add some extra oxygen (obviously oxygen tank in the back seats) to the air mix. 

This should give over 650bhp on stock turbo's. :chuckle::chuckle:

If that's not good enough then add a nitro kit. :flame:


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

You really don't want to be putting extra oxygen in


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Impossible said:


> Dyno's are good but you really cant compare one to the other or even one day to another day on the same dyno. As Arcam kept reminding me the only way to check for sure is to pull the engine out and use an engine dyno.


Not entirely sure that's true, there are some excellent rolling roads out there, I just don't think they make for a sound economic purchase for any of the tuning companies people like us would use to test a car and so we don't have access to them generally.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

R35_owner said:


> What a useless thread R8 is a TT's older brother same as rest of family slow and overrated :wavey:


I think that's just nonsense.

We are talking about stock cars here, and the R8 V10 S-tronic, is not just far from slow it is also incredibly well rated as a drivers' car by people who know the difference.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> You're only evidence is an ebay add and word of mouth. I've asked you (or anyone else) to provide proof, on pump fuel (99RON) without claiming 30% transmission losses that 650+ can be made from stock turbos?


See a page or 2 back. I posted links to three cars in total up for sale (one on here by a forum member) that quote they have 650+ on stock turbos, dyno tested. Also a reputable tuner claiming approx 650 on stock turbos. I don't need to provide any evidence as i'm pointing you to people who say they have.

I can't however confirm or deny if they RR'd on 99 ron or 102 & i can't confirm if they're all lying.

What's your evidence however that they are all lying?

Totally agree that a RR can be tickled to offer out pretty much any output figure, but why would these 3 individuals all be lying?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> You see w8pmc, its not just me


Same reply i gave him applies.

Posted links to 3 owners & a tuner who quote 650 &/or 650+ on stock turbos.

They could be lying &/or could have back handed the Dyno operator, however assuming they didn't then there are 3 cars with just a quick scan.

They could have been running 102 & i don't if that is/isn't the case & can't be bothered to check but i only said you can & their you have it.

If they're all lying then you're right.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

R35_owner said:


> What a useless thread R8 is a TT's older brother same as rest of family slow and overrated :wavey:


The V8 yes & the V10 R-Tronic is a bit of a handful, however the later V10's equipped with S-Tronic would keep pretty much any GT-R honest, certainly a stock one. They look & sound like a true sportscar & the V10+ is something else altogether.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

w8pmc said:


> Same reply i gave him applies.
> 
> Posted links to 3 owners & a tuner who quote 650 &/or 650+ on stock turbos.
> 
> ...


I think it's more that the owners quote the highest power figure they can because they want to, or because they didn't fully appreciate it was the race fuel figure, or it wasn't clearly explained to them. Race fuel is more than just 102 btw.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Adamantium said:


> Not entirely sure that's true, there are some excellent rolling roads out there, I just don't think they make for a sound economic purchase for any of the tuning companies people like us would use to test a car and so we don't have access to them generally.


I'm sure there are great Dyno's out there but how do you know they are accurate?

Counting in the variances in Atmospherics pressure, Temps, Fuel octane and car colour.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Adamantium said:


> I think it's more that the owners quote the highest power figure they can because they want to, or because they didn't fully appreciate it was the race fuel figure, or it wasn't clearly explained to them. Race fuel is more than just 102 btw.


Just bragging rights IMO.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

w8pmc said:


> The V8 yes & the V10 R-Tronic is a bit of a handful, however the later V10's equipped with S-Tronic would keep pretty much any GT-R honest, certainly a stock one. They look & sound like a true sportscar & the V10+ is something else altogether.



ohh I thought the s tronic and plus were the same thing? does the plus have more power?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> What's your evidence however that they are all lying?


Massaged figures to make a sale - losses are not linear, which clearly isn't something you're seeing.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> I think it's more that the owners quote the highest power figure they can because they want to, or because they didn't fully appreciate it was the race fuel figure, or it wasn't clearly explained to them. Race fuel is more than just 102 btw.


Again that's fair enough but doesn't address the issue if it's possible or has been done as i believe it has but agree likely only just.

I've no physical proof that these owners have/haven't exceeded 650bhp on stock turbos, but they say they have & they say they have dyno plots to support this so i'm confident they really do believe they have what they quote.

Again agree that nowadays a 650R conversion does fall a little short of that on regular fuel but again it's not an impossible feat on stock turbos which was only ever my point.

A post above states 670 on stock turbos, albeit on E85 so again it is possible.

My GT-R with smaller Injectors (by todays standards) on stock downpipes & with i think it was a 90mm GTC Titan exhaust got 630bhp on a trusted RR so with the above it's perfectly feasible that 650 could have been achieved with a bigger exhaust, larger injectors & an aftermarket down pipe (with the relative remap).

Perhaps this isn't the case but i can only quote what i see or am told & i've shared that.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Massaged figures to make a sale - losses are not linear, which clearly isn't something you're seeing.


That's a curious response as what can you see that i can't? Where can you see the non linear losses that i'm not seeing?

It's obvious losses are not linear but where in the listings of the cars i've posted do you see any of them mention losses or where they had the cars RR'd?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Impossible said:


> ohh I thought the s tronic and plus were the same thing? does the plus have more power?


No, the S-Tronic is now available on all R8's i believe & was introduced around early 2013. The R-Tronic that preceded it was not the most pleasurable of boxes to use & the manual although great to use was a little harsh i'm told but the DCT S-Tronic is a peach. The S-Tronic in R8 application may have 1st been launched in the + but then followed on the other models.

The V10+ has an additional 25bhp & a significant reduction in weight (don't know the figures). Were also a few styling changes which as per the S-Tronic have filtered through to the rest of the R8 range.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/audi/r8-v10/road-test/plus-road-test

I may be out on the exact detail above relative to dates & the rest of the range, but the V10+ has more power & is lighter than the V10 as well as a few extra trinkets.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

All those variables affect engine dynos too (car colour excluded), how do you know they are accurate?

They are calibrated against known loads to ensure they remain accurate.

Weird, I just posted this in reply to a comment by impossible and now it's gone. It wasn't even inflammatory.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> You see w8pmc, its not just me


Cough:
http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/153475-wallace-per4mance-track-scotland-charity-dyno-day.html
Cough:opcorn:

& look who made the 1st post in reply? I knew i'd seen a respected forum member achieve what i said was achievable when i had my GT-R.

Also look at the 1/4 mile.

I believe we can now draw a line under this one:chuckle:


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

good point, but I'm guessing most engine dyno's will be in a controlled environment. 

This means again the dyno's may in fact be more accurate then I first thought. But the car's will still produce different figures day to day.

Lets say I get my car dyno'ed somewhere with a higher altitude on a warm summers day and my fuel has been sitting in the car for 2 weeks I get a figure of 600bhp.

Another day I dyno somewhere at a lower altitude on a cold day and just fueled up. I get a figure of 630bhp.

Which one is the correct figure?


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

For christ sake :chairshot

there must be someone on here with half a mathematicians brain that can surely work out a compressor map for the stock gtr turbos and put an end to this bickering of mass proportion

turbos will only flow so much air so will be rated to the boost they can physically produce end of

but no it isn't................ as there are other factors too such as said earlier like how much ignition advance you are running whilst coming onto boost as that gives much more extra kick lets say
the exhaust flow is another big determining element 'how fast you can expel spent gases'
induction fitted
volume of fuel you can inject to try match air volume to achieve good afr's
then you can add in valve / cam variants

all the above will affect the power the car makes so its hard to pin it down to one single item as you can cheat to gain more power plus as said dyno operators have the facility to cheat too to maybe please customers!!!

the constant in all the above though with a turbo charged car is the cfm rating of each turbo so why does someone not look it up, work it out and end a pointless argument so we can all sleep easy tonight :chuckle:


----------



## Johnny G (Aug 10, 2012)

I don't believe there are compressor maps for R35 stock turbos available?

I still don't see stock turbos pushing 650bhp, SVM wouldn't caveat the Race-fuel and Litchfield and all of the other tuners would be pushing 650 as their Stage 4 figure.


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

who makes the turbos, garrett maybe?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> Cough:
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/153475-wallace-per4mance-track-scotland-charity-dyno-day.html
> Cough:opcorn:
> 
> ...


You might want to check this one first...

Like I said, losses aren't linear, never mind diminishing!

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/291850-r-mode-vs-save-mode-dyno-test.html

lol


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Well i can't do anymore. I've presented 4 owners (2 of whom were & possibly are still on this forum) who have shown (with dyno plots) that their cars produced North of 650bhp on stock turbos.

If they're all wrong then so be it, but that's where i got my info to argue the original point when it was said you CAN'T do it & i said you COULD.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

If I bore my engine to 4.0 or 4.2 and keep the turbo's standard is that cheating?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> You might want to check this one first...
> 
> Like I said, losses aren't linear, never mind diminishing!
> 
> ...


This i already know, but I still don't see your point relative to this debate? Thanks for sharing though


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

Impossible said:


> If I bore my engine to 4.0 or 4.2 and keep the turbo's standard is that cheating?


No. It's only cheating if you add additional pots.:chuckle:


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> This i already know, but I still don't see your point relative to this debate? Thanks for sharing though


The point is very simple, you want to use any example you can find that makes 650+ and then expect everyone to believe it as gospel. I posted a clear example of someone doing testing, as you're obviously an expert I would have thought you'd see the relevance to the question I asked.

Relevance to the debate of the OP, anyone who thinks the R35 is a supercar is obviously a 'tard, that was established 2 threads ago.


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Impossible said:


> If I bore my engine to 4.0 or 4.2 and keep the turbo's standard is that cheating?



well theres bad cheating and good cheating lol and the above I would class as good
but don't forget if you are running larger forged pistons you have then in effect made the turbo even less efficient as you've increased cylinder size which will need to be filled with more air and fuel which a stock turbo probably could not provide unless you further increased boost pressure so you would ideally need a larger turbo!


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> The point is very simple, you want to use any example you can find that makes 650+ and then expect everyone to believe it as gospel. I posted a clear example of someone doing testing, as you're obviously an expert I would have thought you'd see the relevance to the question I asked.
> 
> Relevance to the debate of the OP, anyone who thinks the R35 is a supercar is obviously a 'tard, that was established 2 threads ago.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but is English your 1st language? I only ask that as you appear to have a bit of a disconnect between what i'm posting & what you're reading.

The debate is can a tuned R35 GT-R on stock Turbos make 650bhp? Your point about testing & losses has very little relevance to that debate as many other factors make a power output relevant to a tuned car. Your point is one of those factors but not the deciding factor.

My examples are real people with real Dyno plots who really believe they have achieved what i'm quoting.

I really don't give a rat's todger if anyone believes me as it's of no real concern to me, however the detail is what i've linked to & if folk believe it then fine & if they don't then fine. I'll not lose any sleep either way.

Thanks


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> My examples are real people with real Dyno plots who really believe they have achieved what i'm quoting.


Oh, so now you're basing it all on belief rather than facts?

Did you even look at the drivetrain losses in the example you posted?

I believe my car can make 1400bhp, I can post a dyno chart to prove my belief and then advertise it as such because it's just that simple!

How wide do you want to move those goal posts...


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

matt j said:


> Relevance to the debate of the OP, anyone who thinks the R35 is a supercar is obviously a 'tard, that was established 2 threads ago.


That's the majority of the UK population and majority car journalists. They're all tards, what do they know ey?


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

pulsarboby said:


> well theres bad cheating and good cheating lol and the above I would class as good
> but don't forget if you are running larger forged pistons you have then in effect made the turbo even less efficient as you've increased cylinder size which will need to be filled with more air and fuel which a stock turbo probably could not provide unless you further increased boost pressure so you would ideally need a larger turbo!



I'm no expert (and this is all in my head) but I would assume it would be about the same work. I.e. wont need more boost to get more bhp. Yes it would need to put more air into the cylinder but not more boost. 

A cylinder 1 meter cubed filled with air at 1bar. A cylinder 2 meter cubed at 1 bar. both have same pressure only 2nd cylinder has twice the air.


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

102mm exhaust and tuned well will make 644 hp its been proven, add some e85 should top 650 hp easily due to extra ignition. all this talk of tards, theres plenty of retards on both sides of the fence with agreeing or disagreeing a gtr is a supercar of that I am 100% positive looking at this thread. 

retards and trolls galore atm.

for the record I know of someone who has extensively had his engine tuned on an engine dyno, then said car has run on a dyno dynamics and the car showed low wheel numbers by comparison, but the flywheel figures where below engine dyno figures still by a few hp which is about right due to ancillaries draw, and im not talking some pussy engine neither 838 hp iirc.


I will try and locate all the plots when I have time and add them here as its a real world comparison of an engine dyno then straight onto a dyno dynamics. the biggest fudgeing imo comes from people trying to apply roller based dyno correction factors to hub figures.

for the small variations we are talking about here say 620 - 660 hp any dyno can be easily manipulated to gain more than that just by correction method used and amb temp probe location.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Oh, so now you're basing it all on belief rather than facts?
> 
> Did you even look at the drivetrain losses in the example you posted?
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you let yourself down with that post:runaway:

ALL quoted power figures are based on belief my friend as no 2 cars of any manufacturer will ever dyno the exact same figures. As was also mentioned before, different dyno's, different weather, different fuels, the list goes on so based on belief is unfortunately how it is.

To get factually accurate outputs you'd need the engine out of the car & onto bench dyno in sterile conditions. I'm afraid the average layperson is unlikely to have a punt at that so regular dyno's are in the main all we can get these figures from & therefore all based on belief rather than fact. Just the way it is nowadays:chuckle:

PS. You could do that but then you'd look really silly now wouldn't you??


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

AdnanK said:


> That's the majority of the UK population and majority car journalists. They're all tards, what do they know ey?


Obviously very little, if it was a supercar, why wasn't it marketed as such?

Nissan Press Release: NISSAN GT-R press information...



NISSAN said:


> The born-in-Japan Nissan GT-R, now on the roads worldwide
> Dedication to good design, functionality, and truly exceptional performance
> 
> The Nissan GT-R embodies Nissan's ultimate passion for the automobile. Based on original Nissan concepts nurtured in Japan, it carries forward a proud heritage.
> ...


I didn't see any mention of SUPERCAR???


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

matt j said:


> Obviously very little, if it was a supercar, why wasn't it marketed as such?
> 
> Nissan Press Release: NISSAN GT-R press information...
> 
> ...


Raise you this - The new Nissan GT-R MY14 - Nissan sports cars



> The New Nissan GT-R is not a supercar, it is THE supercar


Ask Joe public on the street, they'll call it a supercar as do most car Journalists. Hence my remark.

Perception - That's what makes a supercar. People look at it, know about it and perceive it as a supercar, regardless of what people on this or any forum say. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Nissan are tards for calling it that, shame on them


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

AdnanK said:


> Raise you this - The new Nissan GT-R MY14 - Nissan sports cars
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But it still has a Nissan badge! Nissan DOES NOT make a supercar.... its that simple.


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

grahamc said:


> But it still has a Nissan badge! Nissan DOES NOT make a supercar.... its that simple.


Come on Graham, I'd expect more than that from you. 

Reminds me a little of what people used to say on mkivsupra.net about the LF-A.

Again, it doesn't matter what I or Nissan or what people on this forum think. Most people out there would call it a supercar.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

AdnanK said:


> Come on Graham, I'd expect more than that from you.
> 
> Reminds me a little of what people used to say on mkivsupra.net about the LF-A.


Why? The GTR is a great great car and I love it, but there is no chance that I would ever describe it a supercar. Nissan make the micra :runaway:

And what do they say? Overpriced :chuckle: Lovely sound


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> ALL quoted power figures are based on belief my friend as no 2 cars of any manufacturer will ever dyno the exact same figures. As was also mentioned before, different dyno's, different weather, different fuels, the list goes on so based on belief is unfortunately how it is.





w8pmc said:


> _I said that cars with over 650bhp on stock turbos exist & we both know that they're out there. Now perhaps they have limited lifespans & perhaps it's not well advised, however the simple *fact is that they DO exist* unless of course everyone apart from you is a liar._





w8pmc said:


> To get factually accurate outputs you'd need the engine out of the car & onto bench dyno in sterile conditions. I'm afraid the average layperson is unlikely to have a punt at that so regular dyno's are in the main all we can get these figures from & *therefore all based on belief rather than fact. Just the way it is nowadays*:chuckle:


Oh dear! 



w8pmc said:


> PS. You could do that but then you'd look really silly now wouldn't you??


You appear to be mathematically challenged so I'll give you a hint as to why your post made you look silly. Look at the drivetrain losses on the example you gave: 661ATF / 587WHP against known transmission losses for the R35, irrespective of engine dyno testing. 

If something looks too good to be true, it usually is.


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

grahamc said:


> Why? The GTR is a great great car and I love it, but there is no chance that I would ever describe it a supercar. Nissan make the micra :runaway:
> 
> And what do they say? Overpriced :chuckle: Lovely sound


I'm not sure on what I'd call it TBH. I'm always changing my mind.

Just stating what people out there perceive it as, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

AdnanK said:


> I'm not sure on what I'd call it TBH. I'm always changing my mind.
> 
> Just stating what people out there perceive it as, rightly or wrongly.


Well I have never classed it as a supercar.... its really a matter of opinion and you know my opinion


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

matt j said:


> Oh dear!
> 
> 
> You appear to be mathematically challenged so I'll give you a hint as to why your post made you look silly. Look at the drivetrain losses on the example you gave: 661ATF / 587WHP against known transmission losses for the R35, irrespective of engine dyno testing.
> ...


I think it has become pointless.... opcorn:


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Although this thread has diversified from the OP's question it is most definitely a self fulfilling prophecy. I can't believe how many people have been drawn into it and the conviction displayed in their postings. 

Keep going, it's mildly amusing and slightly tragic in equal measures.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

grahamc said:


> I think it has become pointless.... opcorn:


Ditto.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Although this thread has diversified from the OP's question it is most definitely a self fulfilling prophecy. I can't believe how many people have been drawn into it and the conviction displayed in their postings.
> 
> Keep going, it's mildly amusing and slightly tragic in equal measures.


Work has been slow over the last day or 2, but glad we could amuse :chuckle: we even managed to drag you into it all :runaway:


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

grahamc said:


> Work has been slow over the last day or 2, but glad we could amuse :chuckle: we even managed to drag you into it all :runaway:


I'm super busy at the minute so haven't followed things as much as normal. I wasn't going to post as I know FLYNN doesn't like intervention but, hopefully, he won't disapprove of my observation.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

AdnanK said:


> Raise you this - The new Nissan GT-R MY14 - Nissan sports cars


The designer of the car clearly states he designed it as a sports car and the marketing guys have clearly decided to jump on the _press_ 'supercar' bandwagon to generate sales. But good find though, although of all the MYs, the 14 is probably the furthest from a supercar but obviously that's just my opinion.


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

grahamc said:


> Work has been slow over the last day or 2, but glad we could amuse :chuckle: we even managed to drag you into it all :runaway:


Same here, it passed the time quite well today. :chuckle:


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Even the title of the link says "sports car"


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

matt j said:


> Same here, it passed the time quite well today. :chuckle:


Exactly  Im on holiday tomorrow and next week so you guys are going to have to continue the good fight :flame:


----------



## deankenny (Feb 5, 2013)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Although this thread has diversified from the OP's question it is most definitely a self fulfilling prophecy. I can't believe how many people have been drawn into it and the conviction displayed in their postings.
> 
> Keep going, it's mildly amusing and slightly tragic in equal measures.


+1 Agreed

This forum has certainly reached a new low  and that's coming from me!!! an idiot.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

deankenny said:


> +1 Agreed


Coming from you and the "never-ending collection thread...." hahahahaaa

(Really need a ROFLMAO smiley)


----------



## deankenny (Feb 5, 2013)

grahamc said:


> Coming from you and the "never-ending collection thread...." hahahahaaa
> 
> (Really need a ROFLMAO smiley)


Exactly, as stated in my post coming from me (an idiot)

I think it's very sad although slightly amusing.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

is Batman really a Superhero?

Yeh ok he's got a custume a cape and alter eigo. He's got some ninja skills, But no extraordinary powers. 

When any real super hero's turn up he tries to be all dark and mysterious and doesnt really want to hang, But we all know why that is.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

deankenny said:


> Exactly, as stated in my post coming from me (an idiot)
> 
> I think it's very sad although slightly amusing.


Im more on the amused side right now....


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Impossible said:


> is Batman really a Superhero?
> 
> Yeh ok he's got a custume a cape and alter eigo. He's got some ninja skills, But no extraordinary powers.
> 
> When any real super hero's turn up he tries to be all dark and mysterious and doesnt really want to hang, But we all know why that is.


That I believe is a topic for an entirely new thread.... as it deserves to discussed in detail - but no he is not.


----------



## deankenny (Feb 5, 2013)

grahamc said:


> Im more on the amused side right now....


But don't worry I don't want to participate in this thread anymore than what I just posted, so I have already got my coat  and left the cage but will continue to watch like observers at a zoo.


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

Impossible said:


> is Batman really a Superhero?
> 
> Yeh ok he's got a custume a cape and alter eigo. He's got some ninja skills, But no extraordinary powers.
> 
> When any real super hero's turn up he tries to be all dark and mysterious and doesnt really want to hang, But we all know why that is.


I'm not sure but I think he's a Super Hero or possibly a Superhero Slayer - 
As such I believe Superman has had his name changed by deed poll to Hyperman


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

OldBob said:


> As such I believe Superman has had his name changed by deed poll to Hyperman


:runaway:


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

grahamc said:


> That I believe is a topic for an entirely new thread.... as it deserves to discussed in detail - but no he is not.



hell no just stick it in this thread itll be fine


anyway anyone wanna see what I just did in the bog? or what my dinners gonna look like tonight lol


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Impossible said:


> I'm no expert (and this is all in my head) but I would assume it would be about the same work. I.e. wont need more boost to get more bhp. Yes it would need to put more air into the cylinder but not more boost.
> 
> A cylinder 1 meter cubed filled with air at 1bar. A cylinder 2 meter cubed at 1 bar. both have same pressure only 2nd cylinder has twice the air.


You are confused - it's 8 times the air!

btw. bigger engine doesn't make more power, if the turbos are maxed out at 630bhp, they are maxed out regardless of what the engine can do with the power.

Only way to get more power from those same turbos is to make each cu.ft of the flow to enable more energy from the engine. You do that by adding nitrous into your air, or adding oxygen into your fuel, and/or burning a more calorific fuel that can make use of the additional oxygen.


----------



## stealth46 (Jul 21, 2013)

OldBob said:


> I'm not sure but I think he's a Super Hero or possibly a Superhero Slayer -
> As such I believe Superman has had his name changed by deed poll to Hyperman


Lmao!!


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Adamantium said:


> You are confused - it's 8 times the air!
> 
> btw. bigger engine doesn't make more power, if the turbos are maxed out at 630bhp, they are maxed out regardless of what the engine can do with the power.
> 
> Only way to get more power from those same turbos is to make each cu.ft of the flow to enable more energy from the engine. You do that by adding nitrous into your air, or adding oxygen into your fuel, and/or burning a more calorific fuel that can make use of the additional oxygen.


that was my point
a stock turbo in a larger cc engine would be less efficient as will not supply quantity of air needed at same boost level to give the same power


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Adamantium said:


> You are confused - it's 8 times the air!
> 
> btw. bigger engine doesn't make more power, if the turbos are maxed out at 630bhp, they are maxed out regardless of what the engine can do with the power.
> 
> Only way to get more power from those same turbos is to make each cu.ft of the flow to enable more energy from the engine. You do that by adding nitrous into your air, or adding oxygen into your fuel, and/or burning a more calorific fuel that can make use of the additional oxygen.


thanks Adam. As you can tell i didn't put much thought into it. 

Where do you stand on the Batman and superhero's debate? 










What time does everyone get into work? Shall we say meet at 10am tomorrow on this thread to discuss?


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm in at 6.17 would anyone like an early morning alarm call?


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

pulsarboby said:


> anyway anyone wanna see what I just did in the bog? or what my dinners gonna look like tonight lol


I believe that's what facebook is for. :runaway:


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Ah sorry rich thought this wa Facebook lol


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

pulsarboby said:


> anyway anyone wanna see what I just did in the bog? or what my dinners gonna look like tonight lol


If that's your bag then this website may be of interest.

NSFW and not for the faint hearted by the way!

shepshit - Rate My Poo


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Haha can only guess what that is and already seen enough of it in this thread
Good fun though lol


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

pulsarboby said:


> I'm in at 6.17 would anyone like an early morning alarm call?


I'll be in at 6:00 so I'll give you a wakeup call if you like?


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

pulsarboby and TAZZMAXX are you guys milk men? 

why so early?


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Impossible said:


> pulsarboby and TAZZMAXX are you guys milk men?
> 
> why so early?


I started getting in to work at 6 when I got busy a few years ago as it gave me a couple of hours peace and quiet in the office before the phone started to ring and it's just stayed like it ever since. The guys in the workshop do 6 till 4 and I stay to between 5 and 6. Too much to do and not enough time to do it all in really.

Oh, I'm an engineer not a milkman.


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

Some of us have to get up early to feed the gtr with money lol 

More hours = more work done and that means more goodies
And no not a milkman either I collect and test poisonous whelks for wds


----------



## gtr mart (Mar 29, 2004)

TAZZMAXX said:


> If that's your bag then this website may be of interest.
> 
> NSFW and not for the faint hearted by the way!
> 
> shepshit - Rate My Poo


I don't know what's wrong with with me but I clicked on the link out of curiosity and before I knew it I had rated around 7 poos. One came up that repulsed even me which enabled me to come to my senses and close it down. 

Why do you know about that site? Is that what you're doing when you get into the office at 06:00 hrs (be it loading pics or just rating them?). Infact, is that your website ? You know there are trader regulations on here right? You really should get a banner ad.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Come on pulsarboby, time to get up, I'm just having breakfast now.


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

pulsarboby said:


> For christ sake :chairshot
> 
> there must be someone on here with half a mathematicians brain that can surely work out a compressor map for the stock gtr turbos and put an end to this bickering


Yes, me.
But I need the compressor maps and confirmation that all the turbos from 2007 -2014 are the same.

Two dealers told me that the MY13 & MY14 have different turbos.
That said, one of the fore mentioned dealers told me that if I take my car on track I have no warranty and the other said if you use launch control you have no warrenty. So as usual, there is so much miss information about these bloody cars!!!


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Oh dear!
> 
> 
> You appear to be mathematically challenged so I'll give you a hint as to why your post made you look silly. Look at the drivetrain losses on the example you gave: 661ATF / 587WHP against known transmission losses for the R35, irrespective of engine dyno testing.
> ...


Purely (yet again) for your benefit my friend:

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/153475-wallace-per4mance-track-scotland-charity-dyno-day.html

That is a quoted output by a reputable Forum Member from a well known car (then with stock turbos). Now that's the dyno plot so either you DON'T understand (i think you do), you do like the sound of your own voice (i'm thinking that one) or you're calling John a liar or perhaps just stupid as he believed the dyno plot to be accurate/correct.

So a simple question for you, which one of the above is it? 

Last question & it's a sensible one. I believe you're trying to make fact that all R35 GT-R's suffer with an exact level of drivetrain loss regardless of any other factors? Is this correct?


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> Last question & it's a sensible one. I believe you're trying to make fact that all R35 GT-R's suffer with an exact level of drivetrain loss regardless of any other factors? Is this correct?


Forget the other crap you just posted.

What I'm saying is: drivetrain losses INCREASE with power increase, the relationship is not linear. A car that has a certain loss at standard will not decrease in losses with added power, nor will it increase at a fixed percentage.
Somehow, that just isn't sinking in for you and you can't see it in the examples you keep giving.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Ditto.


Ditto +1:chuckle:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Forget the other crap you just posted.
> 
> What I'm saying is: drivetrain losses INCREASE with power increase, the relationship is not linear. A car that has a certain loss at standard will not decrease in losses with added power, nor will it increase at a fixed percentage.
> Somehow, that just isn't sinking in for you and you can't see it in the examples you keep giving.


As you've been told twice now, i totally understand the physics & mathematics, but explain to me how that makes the point being debated incorrect (650 on stock turbos or not)? How does that make John's claims to be fictitious or those of the other vehicles referenced?

Yes, the losses increase & this doest occur in a linear format but that doesn't mean the outputs quoted in this (several in fact) debate are unachievable. Yes if i or anyone was claiming say 700+ from stock turbos then i 100% agree with you that physics would inhibit this & we'd have no argument, but at 650 i don't believe this to be the absolute case.

What tickles me the most is you yourself know that 640+ is totally achievable, however an extra 10bhp is sacrilege & you quote mathematics as the reasoning for this? That coming from someone who called me challenged:chuckle::GrowUp:


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> That coming form someone who called me challenged:chuckle::GrowUp:


Yes, it's clearly lost on you, you're right and I'm wrong. Happy now, can we move on?


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Yes, it's clearly lost on you, you're right and I'm wrong. Happy now, can we move on?


That's a shame, was hoping for a sensible response as to why that ickle 10bhp is impossible & so embroiled in the physics & mathematics but perhaps given so many other factors are involved, an answer just doesn't exist.

Balls, i missed my spelling mistake. How embarrassing

On that basis i concur & have moved on


----------



## matt j (Oct 19, 2001)

w8pmc said:


> On that basis i concur & have moved on


Excellent, it'll give someone other than yourself an opportunity to make you look stupid.


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

matt j said:


> Excellent, it'll give someone other than yourself an opportunity to make you look stupid.


Perfect, that makes 2 of us:wavey:

Have a fantastic weekend.:bowdown1:


----------



## R35_owner (Jun 3, 2014)

w8pmc said:


> The V8 yes & the V10 R-Tronic is a bit of a handful, however the later V10's equipped with S-Tronic would keep pretty much any GT-R honest, certainly a stock one. They look & sound like a true sportscar & the V10+ is something else altogether.


Yes true the v10 is much better than the v8 but similar to e60 m5 power which is not great these days although awesome looking and sounding personally still think it's overrated its small inside and hasn't got the ponies I'd expect for a 100k car tbh each to their own if everyone likes the same car then we would all be driving R8's lol


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Come on pulsarboby, time to get up, I'm just having breakfast now.


where was my early morning alarm call : /
now im late and have even more whelks to sift through, its ruined my weekend

hope the above 2 people have a better weekend


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)




----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

FLYNN said:


>


LOL:chuckle:


----------



## w8pmc (Sep 16, 2010)

R35_owner said:


> Yes true the v10 is much better than the v8 but similar to e60 m5 power which is not great these days although awesome looking and sounding personally still think it's overrated its small inside and hasn't got the ponies I'd expect for a 100k car tbh each to their own if everyone likes the same car then we would all be driving R8's lol


But then so's the Gallardo & Ferrari 430/458.

Having 500bhp in a car with superlative traction, lightning transmission & a sensible weight is a great recipe. Much the same as the R35 but obviously very different propositions.

All a matter of taste but i'd challenge you to not be wowed in virtually every way by an R8 V10+. I'm not the R8's biggest fan but the + is just superb (in my opinion).

I reckon the new one which should be launched around the end of 2015 will be quite some machine given it will be based on the Huracan


----------



## GTO NEMESIS (Feb 22, 2007)

grahamc said:


> Even the title of the link says "sports car"


In 2007 the GTR won the Topgear Supercar of the year award... opcorn:

Can't say I agree with that award, but an award is an award :flame:


----------



## sidepipe (Jan 27, 2010)

Now I remember why I hate car forums so much... they bring out the basest elements of the human psyche. Calling someone a retard because they have a particular opinion that you don't agree with is one step from cutting someone's head off because they don't believe in your god ( or God, or gods..... ) Defending your car purchasing decisions against such stupidity implies insecurity.

I like all of my cars. I enjoy driving them. I enjoy meeting other people who enjoy driving them. I don't care what anyone else thinks of them - I bought them for myself and for my own reasons. I don't care whether one of them is a supercar or if it isn't ( I don't class the GT-R as a supercar, but even if I did that wouldn't make me a retard. )

Now grow up the lot of you!

:flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame:


----------



## LEO-RS (Mar 18, 2011)

AdnanK said:


> Again, it doesn't matter what I or Nissan or what people on this forum think. Most people out there would call it a supercar.


Stand in a shopping centre with a picture of a Nissan GTR and a picture of Ferrari 458 and ask 1000 random shoppers which car is a supercar, what do you think the outcome would be?

I guess about 800 of those 1000 would never have heard of a Nissan GTR, you're asking OAP's, you're asking middle aged woman, you're asking men that have no interest in cars, you're asking teenage girls on the way to get their nails done. In other words, you're asking ordinary people. Of the remainder 200 that do recognise the picture as a Nissan GTR, how many of them would call it a supercar when pictured side by side against a 458? 5%?

The vast majority of ordinary people most certainly do not consider a Nissan GTR as a supercar, even asking car enthusiasts and those that have an interest in performance cars, I suspect the vast majority would not consider a Nissan GTR as a supercar.

The press that do describe it as such are idiots and perhaps getting confused that performance = supercar, yes it has supercar matching performance but it's just an ugly old Nissan badged eyesore at the end of the day. Anyone that genuinely believes they are driving a Nissan Supercar are delusional. Trying too hard to fit in with the Jones's 

To give Flynn his due, even though these threads are fishing and wind up/banter attempts, I don't even think Flynn has described his V10 R8 as a genuine supercar either, even though it pretty much is regarded as one. It would sure hell pick up a lot more votes in the shopping centre experiment above even when pictured with a 458


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

sidepipe said:


> ( I don't class the GT-R as a supercar, but even if I did that wouldn't make me a retard. )


No, but you are at risk of being a retard


----------



## sidepipe (Jan 27, 2010)

LEO-RS said:


> Stand in a shopping centre with a picture of a Nissan GTR and a picture of Ferrari 458 and ask 1000 random shoppers which car is a supercar, what do you think the outcome would be?


Interestingly though ( and I've no idea why I'm getting involved in this  ) many of us had a real life experience of the exact opposite. In 2012 the GTROC did a tour of Europe which included a stop in Monaco. Whilst we were there, it was us who were getting the looks. At the Metropole hotel, the valets were queueing up to take the cars ( many wouldn't let them, but that's another story. )

Not saying that makes the GT-R a supercar.... and as I said above I wouldn't consider it so. But in that place the "normal" supercar has almost become boring, and the GT-R was something different.


----------



## sidepipe (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> No, but you are at risk of being a retard


I think it's obvious which one of us is most at risk of being a retard... and the answer that you were going to give to this post just confirms it.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

LEO-RS said:


> Stand in a shopping centre with a picture of a Nissan GTR and a picture of Ferrari 458 and ask 1000 random shoppers which car is a supercar, what do you think the outcome would be?
> 
> I guess about 800 of those 1000 would never have heard of a Nissan GTR, you're asking OAP's, you're asking middle aged woman, you're asking men that have no interest in cars, you're asking teenage girls on the way to get their nails done. In other words, you're asking ordinary people. Of the remainder 200 that do recognise the picture as a Nissan GTR, how many of them would call it a supercar when pictured side by side against a 458? 5%?
> 
> ...


I actually did this. I showed them a picture of a GTR, then a R8 V10 spyder.

90 voted for the R8 V10 spyder, 10 Voted for the GTR.

The 10 people that voted for the GTR, coincidently all left on the same bus. It had a rainbow on it. They all look similar. They all had moon faces


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

sidepipe said:


> I think it's obvious which one of us is most at risk of being a retard... and the answer that you were going to give to this post just confirms it.


Don't be so hard on yourself


----------



## sidepipe (Jan 27, 2010)

FLYNN said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself


I rest my case.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

sidepipe said:


> I rest my case.


I hope you had a nice day out at the seaside


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

I don't think there is any such thing as a supercar at all

all it boils down to is extravagance (big word) and the vast amount of money they cost which makes a car a so called supercar

people just probably like to label the gtr, bmw, audi ect as supercars as its a case of bragging rights to say they own a supercar when in fact it costs peanuts in comparison to a new Ferrari, lambo or Veyron and the like
even insurance companies label it as a supercar but that's clearly just to hike the insurance up


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

"...but it's just an ugly old Nissan badged eyesore at the end of the day.."
Steady Leo that aspect may not give as definitive a result in an ugliness poll per se (not cf Supercars). Now if you were to ask about a TT and hairdressers... 
Most mums do think their kids are beautiful - But I'm not convinced that metaphor really applies though in the GTR case.

Edit: Owners are allowed to kick their own dogs btw but others aren't, remember where you are lol


----------



## LEO-RS (Mar 18, 2011)

OldBob said:


> "...but it's just an ugly old Nissan badged eyesore at the end of the day.."
> Steady Leo that aspect may not give as definitive a result in an ugliness poll per se (not cf Supercars). Now if you were to ask about a TT and hairdressers...
> Most mums do think their kids are beautiful - But I'm not convinced that metaphor really applies though in the GTR case.
> 
> Edit: Owners are allowed to kick their own dogs btw but others aren't, remember where you are lol


Haha, perhaps I was a little harsh there, they're not that ugly, I guess you GTR owners should look at them as manly rather than pretty 

Soz, just helping Flynn out as a fellow Audi fan, i'll get back in my box now:chuckle:


----------



## OldBob (Oct 18, 2010)

LEO-RS said:


> Haha, perhaps I was a little harsh there, they're not that ugly, I guess you GTR owners should look at them as manly rather than pretty


Indeed - saves me having to keep the socks packed into me trouser crotch


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

LEO-RS said:


> Stand in a shopping centre with a picture of a Nissan GTR and a picture of Ferrari 458 and ask 1000 random shoppers which car is a supercar, what do you think the outcome would be?
> 
> I guess about 800 of those 1000 would never have heard of a Nissan GTR, you're asking OAP's, you're asking middle aged woman, you're asking men that have no interest in cars, you're asking teenage girls on the way to get their nails done. In other words, you're asking ordinary people. Of the remainder 200 that do recognise the picture as a Nissan GTR, how many of them would call it a supercar when pictured side by side against a 458? 5%?
> 
> ...


Genius logic there Leo,

so a hennessee venon, a koenigsegg agera and a gumpert apollo are not supercars then because their brand is not as recognisable by the masses as ferrari.

I agree it isn't a supercar, but I'd not have that point of view supported by stupid arguments.

What's I'm struggling with the importance of the need to label any car within a category.

The label was created back in the 80s when there was a chasm of difference between the average car and the supercar. Since then makers of performance cars like ferrari and lamborghini have had to up their game to make the cars reliable and usable everyday as well as safe and comfortable. As a result of this people who could afford them started to consider them as viable options. This increased sales enormously at the expense of the luxury prestige but reliable car makes such as BMW and Audi. They responded by upping performance of their performance variants to bring them on a par with the performance only brands and suddenly the supercar moniker gets lost somewhere in the middle.


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

LEO-RS said:


> Stand in a shopping centre with a picture of a Nissan GTR and a picture of Ferrari 458 and ask 1000 random shoppers which car is a supercar, what do you think the outcome would be?


That such a poor example. This isnt a TT-RS were talking about. The GT-R's presence has to be seen on the road, not in a picture. 

"Fact" is you have motorist Journos and even Nissan them self calling it a Supercar rightly or wrongly.

You only have to see peoples reactions when they see a GT-R (arguably, mostly blokes), they see it and think it's a Supercar, not all but I'd put a wager on that most will.

"Fact" is, people stop and pull out their phones to grab a picture of a GT-R pretty much everywhere, just take a look on Youtube. Again, I'm not saying it is a Supercar or isn't (undecided).

I was at Westfield this gone weekend, there was a MY11 White GT-R that people were running up to and take pictures next to. This happens alot.

You don't get that reaction from something that isn't "perceived" as a Supercar.

Again, on it's reputation, road presence most people out there who see one will think it's a Supercar.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

AdnanK said:


> You don't get that reaction from something that isn't "perceived" as a Supercar.


More stupidity.

There are hundreds of cars photo'd for all sorts of reasons that are nothing to do with their supercar status.

check out here: 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...ObRHZPlaPbRgPAD&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1153&bih=910

all these cars were photographed for their car status, not necessarily because they were supercars.

post edited because it turns out there's quite a lot of what people might class as supercars in the link!


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

Adamantium said:


> More stupidity.
> 
> There are hundreds of cars photo'd for all sorts of reasons that are nothing to do with their supercar status.
> 
> ...


What a weak and stupid argument. You even googled "chavmobile" to draw a comparison. LOL

You know very well that's not what I meant. The people who stopped and took those pictures above, clearly took those pictures as they were quite clearly humerous, not to appreciate them, you know that and so do I. You think that's the reason a lot of people stop and look at a GT-R?


----------



## sidepipe (Jan 27, 2010)

AdnanK said:


> You don't get that reaction from something that isn't "perceived" as a Supercar.


I got photo'd by some yoof who took a selfie next to me in my car at a set of traffic lights.

I was in my Mini JCW at the time.

Do we want to start a debate on whether the Mini is perceived as a supercar? :chuckle:


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

sidepipe said:


> I got photo'd by some yoof who took a selfie next to me in my car at a set of traffic lights.
> 
> I was in my Mini JCW at the time.
> 
> Do we want to start a debate on whether the Mini is perceived as a supercar? :chuckle:


Oh and how often does that happen?

It happens very often in the GT-R. :chuckle:


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

FLYNN said:


> I actually did this. I showed them a picture of a GTR, then a R8 V10 spyder.
> 
> 90 voted for the R8 V10 spyder, 10 Voted for the GTR.
> 
> The 10 people that voted for the GTR, coincidently all left on the same bus. It had a rainbow on it. They all look similar. They all had moon faces


You're done on here mate, I've turned a blind eye to the use of the word 'tard but you've overstepped the line AGAIN. I'm fed up of the complaints, the baiting and the crapping. It's not the way we like this site to be and it's gone down hill a lot in recent weeks and at the fore of most of it lie your posts. You don't own a Skyline or an R35 so take your "banter" elsewhere.

Sorry guys, if you want to follow Flynns antics, he's on the MLR but I've had enough now.

Mike


----------



## AdnanK (Jun 11, 2013)

Mookistar said:


> You're done on here mate, I've turned a blind eye to the use of the word 'tard but you've overstepped the line AGAIN. I'm fed up of the complaints, the baiting and the crapping. It's not the way we like this site to be and it's gone down hill a lot in recent weeks and at the fore of most of it lie your posts. You don't own a Skyline or an R35 so take your "banter" elsewhere.
> 
> Sorry guys, if you want to follow Flynns antics, he's on the MLR but I've had enough now.
> 
> Mike


His followers/opologists won't be happy with that, many on this thread too. He's a messiah for them


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Either way we're done, enough is enough.

/locked pending admin review


----------

