ras1983

Yeah i'd still sell a kidney and a lung to own one.

I'm saying trim the weight back 100Kg or so and you guys are reading build a stripped out racecar the size of a lotus elise. Are previous GTR's too uncomfortable and compromised? They weigh considerably less than the R35; yet i don't hear many complain about their structural integrity or the interior space. Nissan could have easily kept the weight of the car down; the only reason i can see for them to avoid doing this is cost since lighter weight and higher strength material would cost more. Bear in mind the new engine is probably a lot lighter than the RB series and i'm guessing most of the components in the driveline are also lighter and stronger. Which brings me back to my original question, where has the extra weight come from?

I love the veyron, but i have to give credit where its due and these guys deserve it. These guys are nuts! http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nBDzukCX2U8 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=EInoZcQFdlQ

I wasn't referring to your specific car; it was a general and hypothetical statement. The 0-100 and 1/4 mile times get quoted so often its ridiculous, i'm just pointing out the fact that you have to abuse the car to get those times. Once again, if the car was lighter then it would achieve those times without the need for mechanical abuse. That is all I am saying on this subject because I've made my point. If the car was lighter it would be faster in every aspect, which is what you'd want for a car that is billed as a track car. I'd like to see the rolling start figures in comparison to a 911 turbo or a C6Z06; I believe the weight of the car will play a big factor in the ingear acceleration tests.

More revs means more drivetrain wear in an AWD car. Do you launch from high revs in your car? You'll be replacing your gearbox and clutch sooner rather than later just to get those really fast straight line times. If the car was lighter, you would need less revs at launch to get equally fast times and your drivetrain would last longer. Are we clear now?

No i was simply making the point that those fast times require a fair amount of revs which wears out the drivetrain. Is that so hard to accept? Can no one see that if the car was lighter it would be faster? Whats the problem with keeping the weight of a car to a minimum?

Actually it does an 11.6 with a clutch frying launch. No owner would launch like that repeatedly because you'll either fry your clutch or break your gearbox. GT-Rs were heavy enough as it was; in tighter corners their weight could really be felt and could prove to be quite tricky to handle in some situations (mainly in a series of tight corners where the weight of the car is shifting from one side to the other and/or front to rear; and also when entering a corner hard under breaks, the front would could push wide because of the weight). Even though Nissan seem to have engineered the car very well, imagine how much faster it would be had they kept the weight down.

how much extra weight does a decked out interior add? Does anyone actually know where the extra weight came from? What are the dimensions of the car in comparison to the older models?

I just wish it wasn't so bloody heavy, the older GT-R's were already heavy enough as it is. They should have made a concerted effort to avoid putting on any weight at the very least.

I'd love to see how a pair of turbos will pair up with that coupe4 (i'm assuming its one of the limited run of 4WD coupes)... or one really large turbo.

bump

^^ Too bad Skaife's GTR won both the 91 and 92 bathursts. In 92, Skaife and Richards were leading the whole way up until the infamous crash, so IMO they deserved to get the win.

Can you get compliance if Nissan Australia is going to officially import and sell the car? I was under the impression that if a car is sold through a local arm of a car manufacturer then that model couldn't be imported unless it was a personal import. Maybe thats why the car in question is not available for street use.

Enjoy

In a recent carpoint article Motor's David Morley managed 0-100kmh in 4.0 (and they said it would be hard to do much better), but they managed a 0-400m time of 12.1 while hitting the 180kmh limiter before they reached the 400m point. So it is definitely an 11 second car. the numbers don't add up to me either, but then we don't know what revs the launch control launches from - maybe it launces from redline?

IMO nissan should have released the GT-R with a RB30DETT from the beginning. 2JZ + GT-R chassis/4wd/hicas/etc = awesome. Killer engine + killer setup.

It seems you're right. did they mention what revs the launch control takes off? is it a clutch frying redline launch?

They were testing in slightly damp conditions. Hence there could be a couple of tenths that can be cut from the 0-100kmh time and the 0-400m (also mentioning they hit the 180kmh limiter before they reached the end of the 400m and they still managed a 12.1).

Yeah, you won't go back to drive the Avalon

I'm looking for a pair of R33 GTR front indicators + the black housings. I would prefer the nismo clear lenses but will also consider the standard orange lenses. PM me so we can work something out.

Besides the sub 8 minute Nurburgring lap time (which many people question) and the Drag cars, does anyone know what sort of success the R33 GTR had in motorsport?

I can vouch for the quality of this car, its clean and its runs great. Its ideal for anyone who wants to buy an already modified GTR with no extra hassles.

Yeah i remember that article. Wheels were saying that the N1 was running times similiar to a 996 Turbo.

Thats the funniest thing I've read all year! :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014:

Forget the GTR engine, I'd like to see the 7.0 V8 from the Z06 running a twin turbo or big single setup in a r32-r34 GT-R. If it could be adapted to the ATESSA-ETS system, that would be a killer combination!