Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what is it with GTR owners thinking that everything else is shit?

why can't we recognise that there is other machinery that shits all over GTRs for their intended purposes?

If I needed to move a family with some speed I can think of worse $50K cars to use than a Turbo Ford...

I think we all need to pull our heads in a bit.

:)

1/4 comparison was just one point.

Track work.....a gtr will win

1000 meters a gtr will win.

Keep the dinosaures out of the future...eye of the be -holder

i believe the point of this thread is not to compare GTRs against aus...why do you keep bringing this up?

also, i believe a stock GTR will be beaten by the new GTS in a straight line, no doubt....

but meh, GTRs will never lose, your post just proved it again

what is it with GTR owners thinking that everything else is shit?

why can't we recognise that there is other machinery that shits all over GTRs for their intended purposes?

If I needed to move a family with some speed I can think of worse $50K cars to use than a Turbo Ford...

I think we all need to pull our heads in a bit.

yeah exactly right

some certain GTR owners are so ignorant, i feel embarrassed myself.....

GTRs are good cars, but not as good as every teenager thinks

:)

1/4 comparison was just one point.

Track work.....a gtr will win

1000 meters a gtr will win.

Keep the dinosaures out of the future...eye of the be -holder

It's interesting that you bring up the dinosaur argument. This is one of the reasons (one of many) why I have been anti Holden for a long time. As far as I can tell one only the reasons why they are called dinosaurs are because they are push rod engines and tend to be rather large given the power they offer. When I was looking at buying my skyline the HSV Clubsport was producing 185kw. I think the dinosaur argument was relevent back then.

One recent morning I woke up with completely different view. Just because they are old it doesn't mean they are not effective. For one the HSV's are producing reasonable power, certainly more than most manufacturers produce for the same price. In addition over the whole of the test the HSV returned a 13.9 litres per 100km and that seems reasonable given the fact that they would have been pushed pretty hard during the test.

Anyway I think a lot of arguments are ill-founded or not properly considered.

Anyway horses for courses. This was never about this cars better than that car however it is interesting to compare similar facets of different cars.

Rock on.

I'm pretty sure that GM and Ford are both using the ZF 6 speed now, just with different ratio's and shifter set ups.

nope

the fords are using the ZF with there 6speed autos, with the other autos being 4 speeds (which are slowly being phased out) and the manuals being 5 and 6 speeds (6 speeds more for the fpv cars)

the holdens are mostly still 4 speed autos (4L0E6 i believe - changed ratios and shift patterns in the ve over the vz's) and 5 and 6 speeds (GM style boxes, named like the 4 speeds - L0E6 something) the manuals being 5 and 6 speeds (forgotten the code names...)

ohh and auto boxes are getting more and more efficient, almost as efficient as a manual, sometimes if not more - and a lot more 'smarter'

I find it odd that you would mention that a stock GTR only puts out about 180rwkw. I have a kinda old HPI magazine, which was a GTR special edition mag, In their they mention that most GTR's put out 195-200+ rwkw.. who should i believe?

Was that Munro's old R34 GTR? Or was that in Zoom? I forget.

Either way.. 100% stock GTR around 180rwkwish. With an exhaust 200+rwkw

---

But either way this thread isn't supposed to be comparing the aus and oldschool jap. :)

:)

1/4 comparison was just one point.

Track work.....a gtr will win

1000 meters a gtr will win.

Keep the dinosaures out of the future...eye of the be -holder

Touchy touchy touchy....

Smurf..thank you for the info you have provided....

What I was trying to say guys..in around about manner is that from the technology they have today..we are all still

getting what they want us to drive...

We say power.....we want more power....they up the computer timing...change a setting and we have what we want.

Why don't we ask.......able to deliver power..in a straight line..without breaking traction?

Why don't we ask.......able to deliver this power around a corner?

Or the best one...why do we have to drive 6L motors..when a 4L or even a 3L would be as good.

Next thing everyone will be telling me...would be...a 10L motor would have heaps of torque....yeah maybe for pulling a train.

I am not saying a gtr is the ants pants of everything...just because I have one.

The power figures and the motor sizes vs the weight of these cars still even that they have improved by the percentages

still leaves them short of world motor development.

The next couple of years you will all see motors...displacement of 1/2 the one holden and ford are using,

producing nearly twice as much as these motors.

And the funny thing is..it will be usable power.

Just my 2c worth

If you all want to discuss this..please do not attack the person behind the comment..that is just rude..

lol @ 'a lot more smarter'

i could give you a whole rundown on the zf box as my folks have a territory ghia awd with the 6sp auto, but it would take to long :)

going back to the topic, the looks of the ve are slowly growing on me..they got a big ass tho......

Back in the day.

The old 351 XY GTHO - 280kw (Again similiar sort of numbers even to todays performance cars)

Ford 2v 4.1ltr Precrossflow - 126kw (Same power as the VN-VR Commodore.)

Not a lot has changed really. For a while there power outputs went backwards, now its picking back up again and going stupid. :thumbsup:

what is it with GTR owners thinking that everything else is shit?

I think we all need to pull our heads in a bit.

some certain GTR owners are so ignorant, i feel embarrassed myself.....

GTRs are good cars, but not as good as every teenager thinks

nicely put you two

stock GT-Rs only record low 13 second quarters with a massive clutch frying launch. Otherwise, these aussie tanks would keep up in a straight line (and maybe overtake eventually) a stock GT-R.

But the handling, thats a different story. Take a GT-R through some mountain roads and you'll understand.

:)

1/4 comparison was just one point.

Track work.....a gtr will win

1000 meters a gtr will win.

Keep the dinosaures out of the future...eye of the be -holder

lol...i will bet a case of beer that if you rocked up to a Vic trackday in your super dooper GTR a guy called Budge in his budget VC Commodore will beat you. Come on, take the bet. Its nothing special but i bet your GTR is no better then a dodgy old Dinosaur at the track...sheesh, Whats with some GTR owners thinking that one day they will inherit the roads :)

And your argument about engines being smaller in future years and GM etc being the only ones going for displacement ????? LOL Have a look at every manufacturer and tell me one that are going smaller in displacement? BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Lexus etc etc are all throwing more ccs at the newer model cars. Mercedes had 6.3L sports saloons. The pinnacle of small effecient engines, the S2000 has even gone out to 2.2L. So if the comptuer power is there to get good economy from 6L then do it. It helps pull along all that weight from airbags and safety gear etc

Call it a dinosaur of you like, I cant see the Japanese etc making a car that can get near a Vette in GT1. Or the Astons/Ferraris with thei multivalve engines etc that rev harder etc etc. The Japanese took all their technology and made up their own rules as their GT cars were getting their asses kicked by the Europeans/Americans...so came up with their own class of GT cars outside of FIA regs...then legislated so that 6.0L BMW powered McLarens didnt have a hope in hell against the Jap manufacturers.

The GTR wasnt banned from Touring Car Racing. The class dies because of costs...nothing to do with the GTR being dominant in Aus and Japan, Grp A died in Europe where the class came from and there were no GTRs even being raced there....so who is banning cars or coming up with contrived rules to protect their so called "Superior technology". Hell i love my Skylines but last time out in GT1 guise at LeMans they were gettting beaten by the lesser spec GT2 Corvettes :blink:

LOL...sorry, drinking and needed to get that out of my system.

Back OT. They are some serious numbers for cars for parents to give their kids...and reasonably quick for stock family cars at the track

thanx for this thread...

i was a little dissapointed in only gettin 183.7 rwkw @ 12psi in my 93 gtst. (was hoping to crack the 190's)

it was also on a dyno dynamics dyno,

but seeing these figures has cheered me up no end...

think how much extra cash i'd need to get an ausie mussle car to compete...

when you remember that i'm nearly half a ton lighter... that's a big ass difference!

Its funny how everyone is calling the falcons and commodores taxi's.....just think where did the GTR come from....hmm let me see....oh a japanese taxi.....its still just a skyline GTS-4 with a twin turbo donk jammed between the rails.

Cmon guys everything short of a Ferrari Enzo was a taxi at some point....eg WRX, EVO, Sierra and Escort Cosworths, 427OHC Hemi Galaxies.....all taxis with big engines stuck in them and a quick fix suspention and brake upgrade.

Andrew

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...