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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...