Nissan GT-R Forum banner

2016 GTR Nismo Performance (with dyno numbers)

18K views 27 replies 12 participants last post by  mtanne 
#1 ·
Quite a few people have been wondering about the performance of the 2016 GTR NISMO.

MC, MotorTrend and Topspeed have published lots of great detail on the 2015 Nismo.
And codeguy and a few others have shared their 2016 NISMO builds.

But to date, I don't know if anyone has posted a solid baseline dyno test for a stock 2016 NISMO w/ OEM tune.

Well, sorry it's taken me so long, but here it is.

Took the car to Anthony at FFTEC (Bay Area ) to run some baseline tests on their Mustang Dynamometer.

And these are the results:

Date: May 4, 2016
Run #1 Max Power: 497 HP, Max Torque: 420 lb-ft Boost: 15.2 psi
Run #2 Max Power: 505 HP, Max Torque: 426 lb-ft Boost: 15.2 psi


Configuration: Stock OEM, tests run in 4th gear, Fuel: 93 Octane
Conditions: 69 degrees F, 29.9 in Hg, 62% humidity, weather compensation factor: 1.0
(technically WCF would have been 1.03 for that day had we set it, so pretty close)


Chart: Baseline Dyno of 2016 GTR NISMO (stock, OEM tune) with 93 Octane


We thought it seemed low, but this is 100% OEM stock, no mods, no tuning, no remapping.
And comparing the numbers for the GT-R from MotorTrend, Edmunds, who are reporting stock tuning (not from tuners who remapped first), that's typically 425 - 440 HP. So this would be consistent, if Gross power = 545 and Dyno = 450 that's consistent with 600 HP / 505 HP

Looking at just a few OEM maps, we could quickly see they are tuning this to be "tame" (if you can call any GTR tame) and probably to keep their fleet averages down for emissions standards. For instance, Right away we could see that the wastegate duty cycle was set conservatively. It could be easily adjusted to increase boost above 15.2 psi to take advantage of the Nismo's bigger snails.

So it won't be hard at all to get some substantial gains over this performance level without doing any modifications.

We've got plans to come back to this soon, and do some more work, and will report our results.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#9 ·
Was this baseline on a 2016 Nismo from last year not ok?

http://www.gtrlife.c...rt#entry1697586
Oh totally, I followed that build Stuart did at T1 eagerly! 719 HP on E85, right? Sweet!
Was that your car?

I'd forgotten that the dyno Stuart posted had stock numbers on it.

Still wanted to get a stock baseline so everything we do is based on the same dyno and conditions.

Looking back at Stuart's stock numbers, Max HP was very close at 495, but interesting the max torque was higher at 455 vs 420/426.

How's the ride?
 
#5 ·
We'll see what mine makes stock before I start modding
 
#10 · (Edited by Moderator)
Here's another test we ran.

The vehicle has only one tiny deviation from stock, and that's K&N air filters. But for the baseline, we used the OEM air filters.

Just for kicks, we decided to see if the K&N filters made any difference. So we did another 2 runs, with the K&Ns in.

And here's the result:
An average of +5.5 hp Max Power over 2 runs. No difference to max torque.

You can see that the K&N line (solid red) is above the OEM line over most of the the curve, especially at higher RPM.
And although max torque wasn't higher, torque did stay up further into the higher RPM.

So if you accept these results, those K&Ns may be getting you 5 hp after all.



Best Results To Date:
Max Power: 512 hp Max Torque: 426 lb-ft Max Boost: 15.2 psi
 
#11 · (Edited by Moderator)
even though the air flow ect and all of that is electronically controlled I mean in theory they do allow more air in and the NISMO uses a bigger turbo so given you ran the comparison more than once I can accept they can add possibly 5hp to the wheels. I know some people dont like them as they say they let in way to much silicone ect and thats another argument but I can accept that result as valid sure. sometimes when you use a filter like that or maybe more with cone or short ram you tend to sacrifice a tiny bit of torque for hp so good to see that didnt decrease.

these runs were back to back exact same conditions? ive got a set of them in a box in my garage. I dont run them daily but picked them up last fall as I wondered since the NISMO makes a little more distinct turbo sound over the standard car if they would slightly amplify that at all.

so thats an interesting result. I guess if its really 5-6 hp at the wheels you can brag your NISMO makes what 610hp now lol If I ever go back to the drag strip I might drop them in for good measure but the reason I dont keep them in is if you look even brand new factory oiled you will see they tend to leak that pink oil down in the bottom of the filter box where you can whip it up with a paper towel
 
#19 ·
these runs were back to back exact same conditions? ive got a set of them in a box in my garage. I dont run them daily but picked them up last fall as I wondered since the NISMO makes a little more distinct turbo sound over the standard car if they would slightly amplify that at all.

so thats an interesting result. I guess if its really 5-6 hp at the wheels you can brag your NISMO makes what 610hp now lol If I ever go back to the drag strip I might drop them in for good measure but the reason I dont keep them in is if you look even brand new factory oiled you will see they tend to leak that pink oil down in the bottom of the filter box where you can whip it up with a paper towel
Yes back to back, time stamps were OEM 14:08:48, K&N1 14:15:45 and K&N2 14:24:03. One could argue each time was getting better, so perhaps it was the car warming up. Two problems with that theory: 1. we'd already run a half dozen dynos - so how many runs in would it be reasonable to keep going up? 2. FFTEC had two huge fans on the car to keep the air moving and not overheating (something about running it up to 7000 RPM while stationary it just doesn't like LOL)

As for K&N, people seem to be pretty polarized, so it's hard to get unbiased information. From what I understand the air filter oil wicks to the filter fabric and has been tested to 1000 CFM without any leakage to the MAF or intake. (that's about 3x max air flow at full power, isn't it?) If anyone has conclusive data on oiled air filters vs disposable, I'd certainly love to hear it.
 
#16 ·
The 76 station on Woodside Road has 100 octane "race gas"
(address: 975 Woodside Rd, Redwood City, CA 94061)

Mixing fuel is pretty straightforward. For two Fuels, Fuel A and Fuel B:
Octane = [gallons A X Octane A + gallons B X Octane B] / [Gallons A + Gallons B]

Would love to talk a shell station into bringing in URT 100. Maybe if we all pestered the same station.
 
#13 · (Edited by Moderator)
speaking of octane I would love to see a 93 vs 91 run. I had a guy at Nissan tell me the NISMO is so suceptible to octane even more so than the standard car that on 91 it hardly makes any more power over the premium. I would guess thats a bit of an exaggeration and its more on the 20hp side which is pretty big itself
 
#14 ·
speaking of octane I would love to see a 93 vs 91 run
That is something I'd love to see as well!
I've just never put 91 in (always mix 91 and 100 to get 93)

But you've got me thinking. If we started when my tank was nearly empty, and I put the 91 in first, we could dyno it, then add the 100 to get 93, and dyno it again.
And there you go - we'd have 93 vs 91 numbers!

I'll check with Anthony.
 
#20 · (Edited by Moderator)
Often time all the power you can squeeze out of a car is in the filters. They did a back to back to back in dsport magazine i belive on a subaru brz. Stock vs drop in k&n vs short ram vs cold air. And the k&n drop in added 5.7hp at the wheels i believe and the cold air only 7hp.It is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison because the brz is n/a 4 cylinder vs gtr twin turbo and 6 cylinder. Mtanne, when you get a chance you should run stock 93 octane 1/4 mile runs and tune only that would be a great comparison on the nismo. Beautiful car and great write up keep us posted.
 
#23 ·
Ya, that was a sweet build. Some will say "Don't mess with a Nismo!" but I say unless you bought it as a collector, why not? Especially if you keep it to bolt-ons.
One unique thing about the Nismo that's different from most trims, is the larger turbos. Subject to the limitation of the rods, all it takes is air, fuel, and exhaust, and remapping to take advantage of what's already under the hood. That's why everyone's so curious about how far you can take a Nismo without engine work.

I PM'd Joe to see if he's got some numbers.
 
#24 ·
Im interested to see what a proper tune only nismo on 93 octane can do. Tune only 2013;s run 10.5-10.7s at 127-130mph. The nismo should at least match the 10.5-10.6 and hit 130-132mph. Unicorn runs of 10.4 should be achivable with a excellent 60'. Best of luck mtanne, not too many nismos around, even fewer fbo 93.
 
#25 ·
Thanks! I'm curious too. Not sure I'll get to the track before the exhaust is done - waiting on Akrapovic to arrive.
So not 100% tune-only. < 0.1 s difference?

But will do more dynos along the way, so we can see the effect of each variable. Next steps:
1. 91
2. 93
4. exhaust
5. tune

Then to the track, get some lap times, 1/4, maybe 1/2 if possible.

from there, may go a bit further, depending on where the bottleneck is.
(Guess it'll be fuel-pumps/injectors, and beyond that intakes - the new carbon fiber AMS intakes look good)

Rods are going to define the no-fly zone, because we're not going into the engine proper.
What do you all think the safe margin for torque/power is with stock rods?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top