Cerano

I understand that the GT-R has around 475-480 bhp but its like a 2 tonne monster while the AMG is so much lighter despite the weight loss.

even a fully modded c63 can only run low 11s? while a stock gt-r can run 11.5 or so?

why is this???

alqamzi

because its turbocharged and the dual clutch gear. 500hp in N/A engine is much different then 500hp in turbocharged car. In turbocharged will be much faster all the time.

LZH

what?????? That makes no sense whatsoever man. FI or NA it really makes no difference stock for stock.
I would think AWD has a lot to do with it. Especially from a dig where these cars are virtually unbeatable no matter how much power u have. If u can't get it to hook, then what good is it??

Cerano

so if forced induction can give you a much faster boost even at speeds like 120mph, what need is there for large displacement engines?

HIRO63

The main thing I think its AWD and like at 1/4 miles they will get more traction than RW cars for sure. Plus I heard the gearbox in GTR is super great and shifts very fast. This car is fast!

MikeS54

That is not true

fact is turbo cars have relatively worse top end compared to NA cars due to the turbo pressure will taper at high rpm. However turbo cars will trap very good 1/4mile times due to its extremely powerful mid range providing good off the line power and low gear acceleration.

There are couple reasons why C63 gets walked by GTR. Despite the fact both cars weighs around the same the C63 is probably a little bit heavier. The Dual Clutch transmission in the GTR does a much better job sustaining power during up shift.(this helps a lot during drag races i would say a stock C63 equiped with something like PDK will pull 2 car length on a stock C63 with our 7spd.) Also GTR has better aerodynamic will is helpful when doing highway pulls.

Another thing to keep in mind is GTR's traction is not in the same league as a C63. Either off the line drag racing or highway pulls the GTR will jump on the C63 bad (this counts for about 1-1.5 car length)

Add these points togather GTR will pull on C63 hard... nvm the fact that C63 is 50hp short stock.

alqamzi

so awd 300hp car can beat our cars??? offcourse no, he didn't say from dig or not mainly why are they faster. I gave him an easy answer TURBOCHARGED pulls the gtr As if it have A JET.

alqamzi

[QUOTE=MikeS54;4048721]That is not true

fact is turbo cars have relatively worse top end compared to NA cars due to the turbo pressure will taper at high rpm. However turbo cars will trap very good 1/4mile times due to its extremely powerful mid range providing good off the line power and low gear acceleration.

Maybe other turbo cars not the gtr. I drove my friends gtr and it keeps pulling harder and harder all the way not only low speeds.

kindafast

The GTR has a weight to power ratio of 7.92:1 (Assuming it weighs 3800lbs)
The C63 has one of 7.93:1 (Assuming it weighs 3600lbs)

Since the power-weight ratio is the same, I would assume that the GTR is geared more aggressively and is more aero-dynamic and obviously has AWD.

Maybe the GTR will pull a C63 in the lower speeds, but at Texas mile I saw a high teen trapping C63 (tune+headers and some other bolt-ons) trp the same speed as a stock (according to its owner, which I was somewhat skeptical of) GTR - 168mph. So a bolt-on C63 will be an equal, if not quicker, match to a stock GTR at higher speeds.

MikeS54

[QUOTE=alqamzi;4048731]
Stock GTR is running fairly low turbo pressure and its a twin turbo which gives it a very NA like top end. However a good comparison would be between the F430 and GTR. If you look at some highway pulls F430 will pull on GTR at highspeed because it doesn't lose power up top.

alqamzi

I really don't believe youtube videos, i believe what i see in real life in front of me. 2 weeks ago i raced f430 and i beat him and couple of months ago i raced f360 and i beat him so bad it was a high way race.
FYI my car have K2 Package not stock.

Cerano

i think what he really means is that the torque comes in later than a supercharged car but faster than an NA car.

when does the max torque of your c63 kick in?

but honestly speaking... gt-rs have crazy modding potential. seen a couple of thousand horse power ones that can rip veyrons

JonMBZ

I was just about to ask that Cernao do you know how expensive they are to mod and how much more HP they get by just a ECU tune?

Cerano

well

horsepower/$ they are MUCH cheaper to mod.

5k USD spent here brings them up to 700++ BHP

TemjinX2

I think stock gtr's dyno around 408whp on a dynojet. I think he meant turbo cars tends to have higher tq then NA engines even with the same hp.

Cerano

While it is true fi engines have more tq, it's also true that the max tq comes in earlier eg. Mid end of rev band

TemjinX2

well it really depends on the size of the turbo. But for oems, since most of them use smaller turbos your statement holds true.

If you look at some turbo hondas most of the tq comes in the mid and upper range.

But yeah you can't beat FI for bang for your buck power.

bigigg

Its very simple.. The gtr has a much more agressive gear box, altho the weight of the car is close and the hp isn't that far off from eachother.. Tranny makes a huuuge difference!

AlexCim

There is one word to answer this. MIDRANGE.

Turbo engines typically have a lot more midrange power than N/A motors. A C63 has a VERY linear power curve (meaning power grows almost proportionally to RPM).

Compare the area under the curve.

mthis

Why would a tune/header c63 be equal to a stock GTR
a tune only MHP c63 went 172 in standing mile and full bult on went 185.

Peter_02AMG

My grand parent was driving the f-cars.

Peter_02AMG

You can not compare apple to orange..GTR is in a supercar class, a stock GTR will do 0-62 in flat 3 sec in the right hand. A full modded C63 will do it in 4.3ish....I'll give even give you 4 sec flat, 1 sec is a long time. Off the line our big V8, 4dr sedan is no match for an AWD car supercar. Maybe we'll win in a one mile run when the GTR run out of breath.

mthis

DUde I abuse GTR's of dig and roll it's even worse.

1 a stock c63 does 0-60 in under 4 sec. I did 12.1 at 116 myself in my car.
So if car and driver did 3.9 to 60 and 12.3 in a 1/4 then I should of been at 3.8 to 60 with my 12.1to 1/4.
Fully modded c63 did 0-60 in 3.2 sec and 8.4 from 60-130 at 1/4 mile in 11.2 at 125.

LZH

Whatever man...there's a A LOT more to it than making some blanket statement that turbo'd cars are faster then NA...that's just being ignorant. And yes, some 300hp AWD drive cars could be faster than a C63...Lastly, the OP included quarter mile times in his post, thus the reason I mentioned from a dig.

benyl

alqamzi, you live in Denver. A turbo car will always be faster than an NA car in Denver for the same factory rated horsepower. A stock C63 does not make 451hp in Denver. Never has, never will. There just isn't enough air at that altitude.

A turbo car can overboost in order to compensate. For instance, a 335i runs 8psi normally at sea level. In Denver, it is likely running 12psi as it is a MAP based car. A 335i in Denver will get close to making the same horsepower as it would at sea level.

Last I checked, the C63 was over 3900 lbs. Is that wrong?