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

    • 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.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
    • ..this is the current state of that port. I appreciate the info help (and the link to the Earls thing @Duncan). Though going by that it seems like 1/4 then BSP'ing it and using a bush may work. I don't know where I'd be remote mounting the pressure sender... to... exactly. I assume the idea here is that any vibration is taken up by the semiflexible/flexible hose itself instead of it leveraging against the block directly. I want to believe a stronger, steel bush/adapter would work, but I don't know if that is engineeringly sound or just wishful thinking given the stupendous implications of a leak/failure in this spot. What are the real world risks of dissimilar metals here? It's a 6061 Aluminum block, and I'm talking brass or steel or SS adapters/things.
    • And if you have to drill the oil block, then just drill it for 1/4" and tap it BSP and get a 1/8 to 1/4 BSP bush. The Nissan sender will go straight in and the bush will suit the newly tapped hole. And it will be real strong, to boot.
    • No it doesn't. It just needs an ezy-out to pull that broken bit of alloy out of the hole and presto chango - it will be back to being a 1/8" hole tapped NPT. as per @MBS206 recco. That would be for making what you had in alloy, in steel. If you wanted to do just that instead of remote mounting like @Duncan and I have been pushing. A steel fitting would be unbreakable (compared to that tragically skinny little alloy adapter). But remote mounting would almost certainly be 10x better. Small engineering shops abound all over the place. A lathe and 10 minutes of time = 2x six packs.
×
×
  • Create New...