Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

geez you guys really need to get your shit together.. the r32 platform may have been released a few months before the GTR, but the GTR shell was only built for 1 purpose and that was to go racing... All other derivatives where in place so it didnt look as suss... can u imagine they release only a GTR?? too suss

They were never going to go racing with the 2lt.. it was intended for a 2.4lt

The awd wasnt flogged from porsche.. they have never built an infinite ratio awd system.

The R33 GTR was released a whole year later and it was based on a passenger platform.. hence y it is so slow compared to the R32 and R34.

And another thing.. the rules WERE changed to exclude the GTR from racing. If u dont think so, have a chat to a guy called Mel @ the kangan batman tafe... He had a big role back then :unsure:

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

lol Nissan spent billions of dollars in R&D, and then producing much more passenger car variants of the GTR.. so it didn't look sus?

Kev @ the house down the street thinks you're on crack. :P:unsure:

geez you guys really need to get your shit together.. the r32 platform may have been released a few months before the GTR, but the GTR shell was only built for 1 purpose and that was to go racing... All other derivatives where in place so it didnt look as suss... can u imagine they release only a GTR?? too suss

Right, Nissan built a bunch of street cars to hide some vast conspiracy about....a race car or something? Dude, I think the warmer weather is causing your tinfoil hat to bake your brain. You're making less sense than your average "coverup" crackpot.

The awd wasnt flogged from porsche.. they have never built an infinite ratio awd system.

No, but Porsche was the first company to try running an asymmetric AWD system...at least in a production car.

The Quattro, VR-4, etc ran the same torque split front to rear using mechanical limited slip differentials. The Porsche 959 was the first sports car to try using electronic control of those differentials to actively control that torque split, with an 80% rear bias under "normal" conditions.

ATTESSA went one step further and did a 100% rear bias, but clearly its an evolution of the asymmetric AWD concept pioneered by Porsche rather than the revolution away from the same amount of power going to both ends of the vehicle that had been the norm for AWD vehicle prior.

If u dont think so, have a chat to a guy called Mel @ the kangan batman tafe... He had a big role back then :unsure:

Right, some bloke now working at a TAFE used to be a committee member of the FIA? What, he finds dealing with pimply-faced youths more rewarding than an operational role in the world's premier motorsport organisation?

Edited by scathing

no, rather he builds australias fastest drag machines now instead :unsure: and yes they spent billions of dollars on R&D to produce the limited run of GTRS just like the rest of world does on its outright race cars

GTR was built only to beat everything on the track.

The topic's a bit of a shit-stir, so that's what we've been doing. :)

and thats why we love it, all 10 pages worth (of shit in circles)

Edited by BaysideBlue

From what I can gather you guys love the skyline being rank number 9 in the world....LOL.

I find it amazing how many car experts we have....the worlds best are right here...

So was it a good ideal to place the car in the field at all?

I think this tops everything so far....

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/barabus...-mph-top-speed/

As for putting down all that hp off the line is another thing entirely. Would need some pretty good slicks!

i thought lambo pionered the attesa system in the diablo or did they also make a variant of it ? pretty certain they even used the same name...a t t e s s a.

meh someone will correct me in short order... omg so much shit in this thread i would have replied to if i could be arsed and had time.. instead i must work.. off with me.. peace

i thought lambo pionered the attesa system in the diablo or did they also make a variant of it ? pretty certain they even used the same name...a t t e s s a.

meh someone will correct me in short order... omg so much shit in this thread i would have replied to if i could be arsed and had time.. instead i must work.. off with me.. peace

diablo was put into production long after the GTR. so no, it wasn't the attesa pioneer.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...