Larry Webster at Car and Driver (C&D) noticed a marked performance difference between some of the five Nissan GT-Rs the mags' reviewers had driven (in case you were wondering, Berkowitz' GT-R count is zero). Suspecting "a ringer," the eds decided to stick the uber-Nissan on a dyno. The Godzilla press car was making 420 horsepower at the wheels. Using an estimate of 20 percent loss, the buff book reckoned the GT-R produced 519 horsepower at the crank. This is, of course, based on that assumption (despite Nissan's claims) that the GT-R has unusually low crank-to-wheel power loss. The carmaker attributed the difference between published and actual hp to "early build" cars' varying computer software programming. Translation: Nissan sent out ringers so that C&D, Edmunds, and the other buff books could trumpet "GT-R DOES 0-60 IN 1.1 SECONDS!" As most of us won't be driving a GT-R, the car's PR importance vastly outstrips the importance of honesty, consistency and integrity. Obviously. And this renews questions (raised at the time by TTAC and others) about the validity of the "production" GT-R's Nürburgring record-setting lap time.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I’m struggling to find a way to make this controversy relevant to my life. – I give up.
20% drivetrain loss is really shy estimate. For example all the factory stock quattro Audi’s with torsen diff that have been dynoed in our local dyno show between 24-27% loss.
I remember a 300ZX Twin Turbo falling in this category. The ringer that C&D got back then was much faster than other published road tests.
Not very hard to “up” the power with a turbo and EFI!
Well as soon as it starts selling, the BS stops. SAE ratings come into play and they mandate 5%
accuracy.
That’s why American cars are under rated.
One word:
ZR1.
“varying computer software programming”
AND…………..
So I guess this can go either way for Nissan,
You can adjust up or down, right!
Come on tell us about the special cats, and the removed air cleaner, or those special extra low restriction mufflers that the “ringer” cars with equiped with. Or maybe there were some really special titanium transmission components that allowed the “rigner” cars to shift that much quicker. Than again the “ringer” cars could have replaced some of that heavy steel with “hidden” carbon fiber???????
In all honesty if the only “news” is of a possibly tweaked software module, then it is NOT news.
@whatdoiknow1:
You don’t think it’s news that Nissan is giving cars to magazines called “production versions” that are not what is actually sold?
Drive a car off the showroom floor and you’re going to expect it to be what the magazine said is the “retail” version of the car.
whatdoiknow1 : In all honesty if the only “news” is of a possibly tweaked software module, then it is NOT news.
Just because its an easy and invisible modification doesn’t make it less news worthy. Matter of fact, it does MORE than any of the tricks you mentioned. Tweak the software and the GT-R starts dumping more air, more fuel, more pollutants…none of which can be said from changes to exhaust or drivetrain upgrades.
I would say the definition of a “ringer” has changed, but EFI and variable boost turbos have been around for 15 years. Its just old news.
Oh, and if you did the computer tweaks on your own, don’t be surprised if Nissan voids your warranty…just like the WRX and Evo guys found out.
So yeah, its a big deal.
If anybody bothered to read the ENTIRE C&D article they would read that 3 out of the 5 cars (the first and the 2 most recently tested) put out 420 wheel horsepower, translating to 520 crank horsepower!
Nissan didn’t send out ringers. If anything they did like Buick with the GNX and quoted low numbers. Or like the Japanese in the mid-90s, where every car was quoted at 300 hp max.
If anybody bothered to read the ENTIRE C&D article they would read that 3 out of the 5 cars (the first and the 2 most recently tested) put out 420 wheel horsepower, translating to 520 crank horsepower!
I did read the entire article. All the 3/5 means is that 3/5 were the same. They could have been modified the same.
Nissan didn’t send out ringers. If anything they did like Buick with the GNX and quoted low numbers. Or like the Japanese in the mid-90s, where every car was quoted at 300 hp max.
This is a good argument. We won’t have the answer until the GT-R is on sale and in private driveways and on dynos.
On Top Gear, Clarkson stated that each GT-R engine is hand built and that hp numbers are an approximation.
Since they dyno each car, Nissan may have decided that the stronger cars would be the press cars. Regular buyers may or may not get these “ringers” too depending on the luck of the draw.
Is it not uncommon for models of the same car being built for different markets to have differences in their engine management software profiles? IIAC they must adjust for the the difference in gasoline that is sold in difference markets and also for climate.
The carmaker attributed the difference between published and actual hp to “early build” cars’ varying computer software programming.
What does this really mean? “Early Build” mean PRE-PRODUCTION. Needless to say Nissan was testing many different software profiles for the GT-R.
How much difference in HP is there between the diferent cars?
Were any of these “early build cars” slower than the others? Remember we are talking about “varying computer software programming”.
How many cars are we talikng about and are these the cars that were tested in Germany, Japan, or the USA?
Are you guys also making the claim that other automakers do not routinely do the same thing?
Now that a few “production models” have been test are the results totally out of line with those of the “early build” cars?
Quoted from the C&D article:
Three weeks later, a fifth GT-R arrived. This one, allegedly, was a production version with the latest—and final—engine calibration. We took it both to the test track and MotorCity’s dyno.
This car performed nearly identically to the fourth car. It smoked the quarter-mile in 11.6 seconds at 120 mph and produced 420 wheel horsepower. We also measured the turbo boost pressure in both cars, and the curves were basically identical.
Though we didn’t get a chance to dyno-test the two slower GT-Rs, three of the five were so close in performance that we believe they accurately represent the GT-R’s capability. Clearly, Nissan is delivering more than the advertised 480 horsepower. And the most likely figure is about 520, which is yet another reason to bow to the best performance value since the Corvette Z06.
It appears that the C& D Article is actually contradicting the premise of what you have presented here.
“I did read the entire article. All the 3/5 means is that 3/5 were the same.”
3 out of 5 means Nissan was consistent 60% of the time. Justin, its the first year of a complex AWD 500hp+ car with a hand built engine and dual-clutch trans. There are going to be weak ones. First year buyers beware.
Quick aside: One of the cars C/D tested, if I remember correctly, was one of the GT-Rs from that reno-fernley raceway press event. Those Nissans were not babied, I would age them in dog years.
This is a little like arguing the merits of Santa Claus versus the Easter Bunny.
Dyno tests performed at the wheels can vary for a number of reasons (conditions, manufacturer of the dyno, etc.), and can be hard to translate to HP at the crank. I’ve seen where driveline losses have been somewhat accurately estiamted, based on the average of a large number of stock, production models taken to their local dyno shop…but I doubt that’s happened with the GT-R (how many have been sold…any?).
Dyno tests should be used as relative tools to test modifications. I use them to tell if that tune or that intake is worth the cash…not to see if the factory is under or over rating the motors to begin with, or if mine is stronger than my neighbor’s.
P.S.
Santa wins, by the way…
There’s always a conspiracy, huh?
So if C/D presumably benefits from having a ringer to test (more impressive numbers on the front cover), and there is allegedly some sort of conspiracy and quid pro quo action going on between manufacturers and print auto rags, why on earth would they go through the effort to investigate this and call out Nissan for understanding horsepower?
Guilty until proven innocent I suppose.
Also, the fact that the most recent car tested, supposedly in “full production spec”, put up the same higher dyno numbers that the very first “early build” car did, tells me that this is probably nothing more than underrating all cars.
If Nissan expects significant variance in engine output for whatever reason, it would behoove them to shoot toward the low end of the range when picking a number. Otherwise, they end up like Ford did with the Mustang Cobras and Mazda did with the early RX-8s not making their advertised power. I’d rather buy a car that’s giving me 40 more horsepower than the spec sheet says than 40 fewer, wouldn’t you guys? Either way people will bitch, so Nissan is, as GM often is, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
There’s always a conspiracy, huh?
So if C/D presumably benefits from having a ringer to test (more impressive numbers on the front cover), and there is allegedly some sort of conspiracy and quid pro quo action going on between manufacturers and print auto rags, why on earth would they go through the effort to investigate this and call out Nissan for understanding horsepower?
Guilty until proven innocent I suppose.
Chris, what are you talking about? No one’s suggesting Car and Driver is guilty of anything here. If anything, there are to be commended for calling bullshit on a test car.
Also, the fact that the most recent car tested, supposedly in “full production spec”, put up the same higher dyno numbers that the very first “early build” car did, tells me that this is probably nothing more than underrating all cars.
It’s a question of honesty, accuracy, integrity. WWSIWYG. What We Say is What You Get. And I’m totally down with Sajeev’s point. If an enthusiast tweaks his ECU, the warranty goes poof! If the manufacturer does it, it’s OK? In what moral universe do you float?
AutoFan :
On Top Gear, Clarkson stated that each GT-R engine is hand built and that hp numbers are an approximation.
Since they dyno each car, Nissan may have decided that the stronger cars would be the press cars. Regular buyers may or may not get these “ringers” too depending on the luck of the draw.
I call BS on this.
Your second paragraph statement is flawless (based on your first one), but Mr. Clarkson better provide some factory dyno charts to back up his stuff.
Each engine after assembly (whatever it is) is tested on a dyno to verify (among other things) that the power level is within a range. If I remember correctly is about +/- 5% of advertised value. Of course, the tolerance change between manufacturers and engines.
And there’are always variations in engines, whether they’re hand or robot assembled due to part tolerances.
This whole story…
1) The GT-R is a legend per-se. No need to “make” fake cars for press/Nürburgring etc… Or is it “needed”?
2) Why Nissan would do this? What are the reasons behind all this?
It’s a question of honesty, accuracy, integrity. WWSIWYG. What We Say is What You Get. And I’m totally down with Sajeev’s point. If an enthusiast tweaks his ECU, the warranty goes poof! If the manufacturer does it, it’s OK? In what moral universe do you float?
Robert,
Car and Driver is not claiming that Nissan tweaked the ECUs on the GT-R to gain an advantage in Media performance testing!
What they are stating is that 2 of the 5 casrs they tested did not perform as strongly as the 3 others. It appears from their article that the ECU “MIGHT” be the cause of the difference BUT they are NOT sure because they have NOT dynoed all 5 cars.
Come on you guys can’t at this point honestly make the claim that these “early build” GT-R will perform any differently than those that will go into costumers hands.
But really, who cares?
As Far as I am concerned the GT-R like all of the other so-called supercars are all street legal passanger cars. So what Nissan has produced a car to sell that can out-perform soem Ferraris and Porsches! Any automaker can make a super car and sell it at a lose! Or better yet why don’t we all just admit that the price that Ferrari and Porsche charges for their level of performance is NOT worth it anymore (IF PERFORMANCE IS YOUR MAIN GOAL).
Lets keep it real! Do you guys actually believe that Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, AM, actually has some magic or technology that GM, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, or Mazda can’t match? All have made extremely competitive sports cars that have out-perfromed the so-called big-boys before.
Aside from some serious financial problems facing GM anyone of these companies could smash the European “heritage” brands in the game of high-performance sportscars IF they decided to make that a priority.
Why can’t we assume that since the 3 tested cars were similar, then maybe the only issue is Nissan giving us a conservartive hp number.
Other examples where the stated hp numbers were suspected to be a little low:
BMW 335 (as discussed in various bmw forums)
Ferrari 599 (also in the C&D magazine)
Neon SRT-4 (not 100% sure on this one)
Future possibility C6 ZR-1
The Nissans may just be consistently putting out more power than advertised.
Motor Trend did this same article a few months back and pretty much came to the same conclusion: either Nissan is being ultra-conservative with the GT-R’s power figures or the cars being sent to press test fleets are all ringers. And indeed it does beg the question: besides ultra-short gearing and AWD, can 480hp really accelerate a 4000lb car to 60mph in under 4 seconds?
My answer: no
But hey, I’m no mechanic sooooo…..
Aren’t GT-R power numbers always under-rated from the factory? Pretty sure the R33 and R34 were always thought to have at least 50whp more than was advertised.
SupaMan:
can 480hp really accelerate a 4000lb car to 60mph in under 4 seconds?
My answer: no
But hey, I’m no mechanic sooooo…..
peak hp is a nearly worthless #, so good luck with your calculation.
whatdoiknow1:
It’s funny that you say “Aside from some serious financial problems facing GM anyone of these companies could smash the European “heritage” brands in the game of high-performance sportscars IF they decided to make that a priority.”
When GM is the only company out of your list “GM, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, or Mazda” that has made a car (ZR1) that is as fast as, or faster than the fastest cars from Porsche, Lamorghini and Ferrari (Aston Martin is not even in the same performance league)
Dyno tests performed at the wheels can vary for a number of reasons (conditions, manufacturer of the dyno, etc.), and can be hard to translate to HP at the crank. I’ve seen where driveline losses have been somewhat accurately estiamted, based on the average of a large number of stock, production models taken to their local dyno shop…but I doubt that’s happened with the GT-R (how many have been sold…any?).
Dyno tests should be used as relative tools to test modifications. I use them to tell if that tune or that intake is worth the cash…not to see if the factory is under or over rating the motors to begin with, or if mine is stronger than my neighbor’s.
Agreed. I remember a Sport Compact Car article from a few years back where the writers took a bone stock Ford Ranger 4×4 to five different dyno shops in their area and got back five different horsepower and torque readings with as much as a 30 hp difference between the numbers. There are many variables that can affect a dyno’s reading even to the point that changes in temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure can affect readings even on the same dyno.
Why can’t we assume that since the 3 tested cars were similar, then maybe the only issue is Nissan giving us a conservartive hp number.
Other examples where the stated hp numbers were suspected to be a little low:
BMW 335 (as discussed in various bmw forums)
Ferrari 599 (also in the C&D magazine)
Neon SRT-4 (not 100% sure on this one)
Future possibility C6 ZR-1
I don’t know about the other cars, but the SRT-4 (at least the 03 models) was severely underrated from the factory. Dodge rated them at 215hp, but some magazines got as much as 228 when they tested them.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find sandbagging going on here!
thetopdog :
August 21st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
whatdoiknow1:
It’s funny that you say “Aside from some serious financial problems facing GM anyone of these companies could smash the European “heritage” brands in the game of high-performance sportscars IF they decided to make that a priority.”
When GM is the only company out of your list “GM, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, or Mazda” that has made a car (ZR1) that is as fast as, or faster than the fastest cars from Porsche, Lamorghini and Ferrari (Aston Martin is not even in the same performance league)
Notice, I said: IF they decided to make it a priority! Now notice that GM (a company that cant figure out its a$$hole from its elbow) is the ONLY one mentioned above that is wasting precious recourse (of which they have few)on a 638hp 2 seater car that will not gernerate enough profit to by dinner for the GM execs. The rest all go racing, yet understand that it is the $25,000 cars that they sell that are making their employees and shareholders happy!
IF (big IF) the Malibu was at least the number 2 seliing car in the USA (like it should be) than I could understand GM (the largest automaker in the world) beating its chest with the ZR1.
Unfortunately those guys over at Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda can look at GM with its ZR1, Ford with its Ford GT, and Chysler with the Viper and say; “yeah, those are some nice “toys” you got there. Now tells how much money did you make this year???????”
I saw a silver GT-R yesterday with the vanity plate GODZLA and I have to say: it was pretty pedestrian. No one crowded around in the stylish neighborhood where it was parked. No one really recognized it as anything special. It didn’t sound like a Ferrari when it started up. Then it idled in traffic next to a Hyundai.
What I don’t understand is why there’s so much contradictory information out there about this car.
So if 3 out of 5 cars perform the same, that’s a good indicator of what? Ringers? Crappy QA?
I think it boils down to every car media outlet wanting to be ‘first’ with all the gt-r info that they jump the gun and just print whatever the hell they see in the first 5 minutes of demo-ing their tester.
I’m with conslaw. The car may be a ‘bargain’, but I find myself struggling to care. It may go like greased lightning, but at that price I like a little style over substance, and this thing has the frontend of a lancer and the backend of a cobalt; neither of those being a compliment.
Somebody wake me up when a car off the lot hits a dyno.
I’m glad this is coming out finally. It’s bound to be worse once owners have them.
In one of the “slow” GTR’s it was in a comparison and got spanked by a mile to 150 by the Z06. Pretty much what I would predict for an AWD 4wd lead sled vs. the Z06.
Robert Farago :
Chris, what are you talking about? No one’s suggesting Car and Driver is guilty of anything here. If anything, there are to be commended for calling bullshit on a test car.
That was in reference to prior assertions that C/D et al are in the pocket one way or another with the manufacturers who provide them test vehicles. But yes, I’m glad they investigated this.
It’s a question of honesty, accuracy, integrity. WWSIWYG. What We Say is What You Get. And I’m totally down with Sajeev’s point. If an enthusiast tweaks his ECU, the warranty goes poof! If the manufacturer does it, it’s OK? In what moral universe do you float?
You’re assuming the ECU is tweaked. It’s not like underrating horsepower for insurance, marketing, whatever reasons is something new. Back in the 1960s, the 426 Hemis were underrated, as were the 427 Chevy L88s. A more recent example is the BMW 335i, which performs far better than an even 300 horsepower I6 should and dyno results have shown 300 to be an underestimate. As a comment above said, it could be sandbagging.
Maybe something more sinister is afoot, but there is no evidence of that. When 60% of the cars C/D tested – including the last one, which is allegedly in production spec – are consistently over the published power rating, that tells me that the car may be just underrated. Until we see retailed cars NOT making those dyno numbers, Justin’s guess about giving ringers to car magazines is just a guess and proves nothing. Sometimes a cigar might be just a cigar.
About the ECU reprogram, if it’s applied consistently, where’s the problem? If Nissan tweaks it and gives me more power and covers any repairs resulting from that change under the warranty, it means the party making the change pays for any repairs. If an owner does it and voids the warranty, it’s the same thing – the party making the change pays for the repairs.
I really don’t see an issue with my moral universe. All I’m saying (which you know I’ve contended before) is that sometimes the most sinister outcome is not the truth. The C/D investigation did not find evidence (at least at this point) that Nissan gave them test vehicles with more power than paying customers will get, so at this point there is no (confirmed) TRUTH in that idea. I believe that skepticism can be healthy, and of course TTAC thrives on it, but stating definitively that Nissan sent ringers to the auto rags seems inaccurate to me. Maybe it’s a simple case of under-promising and over-delivering.
IF customer cars show up making the advertised power on a dyno and not these inflated figures, I’m more than happy to crucify Nissan. But to my knowledge that has not yet happened, has it?
The production cars are not as fast as a stock C6 Corvette with “only” 430 hp. Oh ya, a base C6 is $30K less.
z31:
peak hp is a nearly worthless #, so good luck with your calculation.
That may be true, but to a lahman comparing apples to apples:
2008 Nissan GT-R with 480hp twin turbo V6, AWD and weighs close to 4000lbs accelerates 60 in 3.4 seconds at last review.
2008 Corvette ZO6 with a 505hp V8, RWD and weighs a little over 3000lbs accelerates to 60 in about 3.8 seconds at last review.
Am I the only one who sees some kind of problem with these figures?
I read that ultra-short gearing has a lot to do with the GT-R equally a Ferrari Enzo in the sprint but still….magazine after magazine that I’ve read have always speculated the Nissan was making substantially more than the advertised 480hp.
SupaMan :
The GT-R has AWD, which helps greatly with launching. From 0-60, the biggest factor for almost any car with 400+hp is traction, not power/weight ratio. Which is partially why 0-60 is kind of pointless in this day and age where even Camrys are doing it in under 6 seconds.
The GT-R also has launch control, which I’m assuming helps cut down 0-60 times too
I don’t think it’s outrageous for the GT-R to have a better 0-60 than the Z06
Jim Wangers is back and has a G8 he wants you to test…
Very old C/D reference