T-rex is actually larger and heavier than both Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontos

Hello KillerKnife T-rex may be taller ( guess we'll never know) but i always believed Giganotosaurus to be larger and heavier overall. 2- 3 meters (6-9 feet) on such a large animal can make a world of difference imo. Giga is estimated to be 2 tonnes heavier than T-rex, if I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong). That would be an advantage in a one-on-one clash to knock it's adversary down, so it could rip it's throat out...I mean, break it's neck. JP3-serum, you know? BUT, T-rex still has some of the most badass looking set of teeth ever. My god, those jaws...makes a rottweiler look like -insert clever animal reference here- I dunno. Deinocheirus is still my favourite though...if it's really a theropod that is.

thanks for the reply Gimmeafacehug... and i respect your point of view, but for me it's really clear... T-rex is taller and have ruffer more robust bones, and giga's bones were even more hollow than T-rex's... new theories say that giganotosaurus was lighter than t-rex by a half ton.

see now guys i am an expert in paleontology in my country and i am giving the verdict giganotosaurus was much heavier and built big but not as tall as the tyrannosaurus but trex had a much deadly arsenal of claws teeth and brute strength so giganoto was much bigger but rex was more powerfull.

its not larger or longer but wieghed more and i think rex would lose most of the time.thats what the experts say

Now there are more T-rex specimens like ucmp 137538 (15-16 meters) and ucmp ucmp 118742 (with 16 years has the same size Sue´s had) and MOR008 ect.... T-rex is the 2nd bigger after spino... and is heavier like in this link http://universitam.com/academicos/?p=13312 30% bigger and heavier than expected.... so...

I agree with the theory that T-rex was larger. Based on my research, it was bigger than Spinosaurus as well. A large rex was up to 50 feet in length and 9 or more tons. Spinosaurus was 6 feet longer, but only 5 to 6 tons. Giganotosaurus was the size of an average rex, 43 feet long and 7 or 8 tons, but smaller than the maximum size. New discoveries are being made all the time though, so who knows.

Ur an expert paleontologist and u say Trex had a much deadlier arsenal of claws? Ur not a paleontologist. Yes teeth and probably strength but not claws. It had small arms and small claws, it couldn't even itch its face.

Considering there have been more fossil discoveries of Tyrannosaurus Rex than Spinosaurus and possibly(but I'm not sure, sorry if I'm wrong) Giganotosarus it is not safe to assume that the only specimens of the two are indeed the maximum growth level. it also not safe to say that even Tyrannosaurus's largest specimen is its maximum potential. Paleontology at this stage is and may always be very dependent on Theory. So i would change my tones if I were you and stop acting like you know exactly what's what. (although in my opinion spinosaurus looks the coolest).

One study was conducted recently where scientists used a laser scanner to make 3D models for Tyrannosaurus. The scanned 5 skeletons, including Sue, and were able to get some of the most accurate size estimates ever. Sue was the slimmest and is now known to have weighed 9 tons. This is heavier than any other large carnivore, land that is, and it was the slimmest of the 5!

Don't get me wrong, I love T-Rex, but it was actually probably smaller than Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, not to mention Spino. While it is possible that Rex reached 50 feet, beating Giga and Carch, it would still be smaller than Spino's 54-60 feet. Actually, I have some news that took me by surprise. I thought Spino was definitely lighter, but maybe not. Spinosaurus may be the largest of all known carnivorous dinosaurs, even larger than Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. Estimates published in 2005 and 2007 suggest that it was 12.6 to 18 metres (41 to 59 ft) in length and 7 to 20.9 tonnes (7.7 to 23.0 short tons) in weight. Over 20 tons?!?!?!

@giganotosaurus and KingRex, actually, tyrannosaurus had quite blunt dentition actually. The main advantage that it had over giganotosaurus was its obvious advantage in build. Giganotosaurus had teeth that were perfectly designed for ripping and tearing, whereas the teeth are merely complimentary for tyrannosaurus. Giganotosaurus lacked in powerful and heavily-built jaws but possessed very deadly dentition that would have been very useful in creating blood loss, ripping out important tissue and musculature, and causing damage to the spinal cord in the event of a hatchet-bite. Tyrannosaurus is basically the direct opposite; while its jaws and overall build were very strong, its teeth were much blunter and thicker than those of giganotosaurus. They were perfectly designed for causing deep skeletal damage as opposed to tissue and flesh damage.

Sorry Rex Fan 684, but UCMP is false, there was no 50ft. long, 9 ton T-rex.

But this your opinion and I respect that, we just have different views on that sort of thing.

And I thought Giga was at least 2 feet taller than Rex, given that you (Killer Knife) think Rex is 16 feet tall.