Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

im kinda sceptical on ur time, as nos generally removes 2 seconds

i think i saved the replay no nos fitted at all to the car.

with nos you should be able to take off more than

2 seconds on such a large track

*edit, typo*

I did the ring in 5:45 something in the R32 GTR Calsonic... Fully worked with nos and a long 5th. No spins, and a generally good clean run. I had holidays for 4 weeks :)

*edit, typo*

I did the ring in 5:45 something in the R32 GTR Calsonic... Fully worked with nos and a long 5th. No spins, and a generally good clean run. I had holidays for 4 weeks :)

Got a split?

...and maybe post a pic of the screen for these 'ultra' fast times :dry:

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

'97 R33 GTR Vspec

8:37.421

Stock w/ sports med tyres

Slides more than the 32 i reckon so i think i could better my R32 time easy.

BTW im only doing 2 laps with each car as it not the shortest track in the game lol. first is to get the feel of the track with the car and then i see if i can beat that one.

Edited by Freddy Kruger
BTW im only doing 2 laps with each car as it not the shortest track in the game lol. first is to get the feel of the track with the car and then i see if i can beat that one.

thats exactly what I do, you need to set a time and a ghost car to beat :D

'99 R34 GTR Vspec

8:24.817

Stock w/ sports med tyres

i rate the r34 :ermm: definetly holds the road better than the r33. plus it was red so it gained an unfair advantage with speed :sick:

might do a 350z next or the gtr proto? dunno...

Edited by Freddy Kruger

Modified Mines R34 GTR

6:54.775

i could get quicker i reckon with changing the gears and suspension as it topped out at 348kmh on the straight and slid like a mule round some corners...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...