Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

tried the amuse s2000 and fark that thing is quick out of the box!!! could only manager a 55.504. tired a wing on the fd but it felt worse, tried to change the suspensiong but still felt like crap. took wing off and tweaked it a bit more and managed a 54.191!!! 53 seconds here we come.

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

53 seconds here we come.

beatcha to it! I put a wing on my 738bhp '89 GTR - 53.829!

then I decided to try other GTRs to see if any can get more power.

GTR VSpec N1 '93 749bhp 54.003 with wing. haven't tried any others yet.

Also got a Honda NSX '01 with 462bhp and wing to 54.673. Not bad for the power its got. Can't seem to turbo any of the NSX's :)

IM A NERD NOW.

51.86 in the koingseggC8XS(whatever it is) how ever u spell it in forza.

does it count?

from a different game on a different platform in a non-JDM car? yeah, no worries! sounds like a fair comparison!

beatcha to it! I put a wing on my 738bhp '89 GTR - 53.829!

then I decided to try other GTRs to see if any can get more power.

GTR VSpec N1 '93 749bhp 54.003 with wing. haven't tried any others yet.

Mind telling me your set up's for these 2 cars to get these times?

beatcha to it! I put a wing on my 738bhp '89 GTR - 53.829!

then I decided to try other GTRs to see if any can get more power.

GTR VSpec N1 '93 749bhp 54.003 with wing. haven't tried any others yet.

Also got a Honda NSX '01 with 462bhp and wing to 54.673. Not bad for the power its got. Can't seem to turbo any of the NSX's :rofl:

fark that is quick for a 4wd car! i find that all the 4wd cars i drive have too much understeer to run quick times but now i stand corrected! tried the r34 v2 N1 with about 700ps or something close to that and could only manage a low 55. i think i had the suspension a little too hard for sports tyres but with 12kg spring front and rear

Mind telling me your set up's for these 2 cars to get these times?

here you go. try them out and see how you go...

both have Sport Soft tyres of course. I won't list every part I bought because its enough typing already, just assume its done unless I specifically say it isn't. I never use NOS, and have never used the weight balance settings either - both of those feel like cheating...

Nissan Skyline GTR '89

738bhp/1215kg

just fully modify the engine (no NOS) Turbine Kit: Original

get all the driveline bits (triple clutch, race flywheel, carbon driveshaft) except:

LSD: standard (changing them on GTR makes them understeer like a dog)

AYC Controller: none

Variable Centre diff: none

Weight Reduction: Stage 3, no cage (incr rigidity), no body refresher plan

Brake Controller: none

SETTINGS:

Suspension: Original

spring rate: 6.3 7.8

ride height: 74 74

damper: 9 9

camber: 3.2 0.8

toe: -2 0

stabiliser: 3 3

Transmission: Fully Customisable

auto setting 21

2.476 1.683 1.245 0.971 0.773 final drive 4.111

Downforce: 30 32

NISSAN Skyline GTR VSpec N1 '93

749bhp/1249kg

fully mod engine with no NOS, Turbine Kit: Original

get all the driveline bits (triple clutch, race flywheel, carbon driveshaft) except:

LSD: standard (changing them on GTR makes them understeer like a dog)

AYC Controller: none

Variable Centre diff: none

Weight Reduction: Stage 3, with cage (increase rigidity), and body refresher plan.

SETTINGS:

Suspension:Original

spring rate: 8 10

ride height: 76 76

damper: 8 8

camber: 3.2 0.8

toe: 0 0

stabiliser: 4 4

Transmission: Fully Customisable

auto setting 10

3.355 2.316 1.716 1.331 1.081 0.919 final drive 4.111

Downforce: 30 28

here you go. try them out and see how you go...

both have Sport Soft tyres of course. I won't list every part I bought because its enough typing already, just assume its done unless I specifically say it isn't. I never use NOS, and have never used the weight balance settings either - both of those feel like cheating...

Nissan Skyline GTR '89

738bhp/1215kg

just fully modify the engine (no NOS) Turbine Kit: Original

get all the driveline bits (triple clutch, race flywheel, carbon driveshaft) except:

LSD: standard (changing them on GTR makes them understeer like a dog)

AYC Controller: none

Variable Centre diff: none

Weight Reduction: Stage 3, no cage (incr rigidity), no body refresher plan

Brake Controller: none

SETTINGS:

Suspension: Original

spring rate: 6.3 7.8

ride height: 74 74

damper: 9 9

camber: 3.2 0.8

toe: -2 0

stabiliser: 3 3

Transmission: Fully Customisable

auto setting 21

2.476 1.683 1.245 0.971 0.773 final drive 4.111

Downforce: 30 32

NISSAN Skyline GTR VSpec N1 '93

749bhp/1249kg

fully mod engine with no NOS, Turbine Kit: Original

get all the driveline bits (triple clutch, race flywheel, carbon driveshaft) except:

LSD: standard (changing them on GTR makes them understeer like a dog)

AYC Controller: none

Variable Centre diff: none

Weight Reduction: Stage 3, with cage (increase rigidity), and body refresher plan.

SETTINGS:

Suspension:Original

spring rate: 8 10

ride height: 76 76

damper: 8 8

camber: 3.2 0.8

toe: 0 0

stabiliser: 4 4

Transmission: Fully Customisable

auto setting 10

3.355 2.316 1.716 1.331 1.081 0.919 final drive 4.111

Downforce: 30 28

wow you run really soft suspension. on the rx7 i run 12 and 10 spring and 10 and 9 damper. Will have to try no lsd in the gtr and see how i go. got a bit closer to the 53 last night, 54.087! anyone tried messing with the brake bias with any success?

  • 2 weeks later...

been trying other GTR's and found a winner- R34 GTR 53.007!

A 52 should be possible but it will have to be a pretty damn good lap. not an easy car to drive though - it needs the throttle fed in progressively out of corners and how well you do that makes or breaks the lap time.

i think we have a winner!!!!

52.098!!!!!!!!!!!! on sports tyres!!!!! in a rear wheel drive car!!!!!

the gillet vertigo race car '04. mod it full up, leave all the setting stock except for the gear ratios at about 11, traction control at 3, and no NOS

and i'd can say for sure that 51's are possible with this car. i have been faster to the second corner than the ghost of that time, but f**k up the entry and run too wide, or cut to sharp and hit the ripple strip.

Edited by mad082
other people have done laps in non jap cars. and i class the vertigo in the same class as any car bought from a tuning company (not original manufacturer).

the game specifies if it is a race car in the car's title - eg "Gillet Vertigo Race Car". Its in the same class as the other race cars in the game. You won't find "race car" in the title of any of the other cars we've used.

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

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...