Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont know what all these CON bussiness is about, im not too familiar with the Ring, but i doubt Nissan would do a 'dodgy' and promote it for the whole world to see specially with so much scrutiny and people anticipating the launch of the GTR, i think someone wanted to know the comparisons between the V8 super cars and the new GTR:

Nissan GT-R

Performance: 0-100km/h 3.7secs, 308km/h top speed

Price: $120,000 (estimated)

VS:

V8 Supercar: 3.8 secs (Ford Team Vodafone), 4.0 secs (Holden Toll Racing), from $400,000-$500,000

and yes i know this isn't a very fair comparison, but still gives you an idea of the GTR's potential. Keep in mind that the GTR is a road car with all the trimmings (which add weight)

If only they would change the rules again in Bathurst again :P it would be like the early 1990's all over again, but im sure the 'the pack of assholes' might have something to say about that :)

not a chance

V8 taxicars are here to stay as they are 'till kingdom come

in all their 5 litre, pushrod, live-axle glory

(notice how much [the Fords in particular] don't even remotely resemble the road cars mechanically anymore...hmmm)

Back to the topic guys......leave the guy alone.

He made a mistake......

He should apologize for this and move on...at least that is what I would do...

Silence is assumed to be a poor trait amongst men.

It is fine for women though :P

Enough said

actually its the bommodores that are less like production spec, they run ford rear diff and ford front suspension (wishbones) instead of the bommadore struts. But I think we have picked on the poor misguided foo' enough already, right?

Lets also not forget that despite the fact that the Taxis are pretty much sports sedans now the race record for the Bathurst 1000 is still held by the GroupA (Damn near factory compared to V8 Camiras, I mean Supercars) GTR... and before anyone thinks they did a dodgy here too, (because of course Holden and Ford would never pay Cams to fix a series) the race where they set the record WAS NOT the rain shortended one and did include the Chase.

And now, 16 years on the Taxis are still not as quick as a production GTR.. (yes I am sure that a lap of Bathurst by a stock GTR would be slower than a Taxi, but lets see it in racing trim)

back to the 7:38 posted....

Reading Wheels this month they state that the 911 GT2 has now posted a 7:32 in response to the GTR's time....

damn those germans!

Edited by R32zilla
back to the 7:38 posted....

Reading Wheels this month they state that the 911 GT2 has now posted a 7:32 in response to the GTR's time....

damn those germans!

i don't think the GTR was built to beat the GT2's time, but just wait till the v-spec/nur/evo version is released...........

i don't think the GTR was built to beat the GT2's time, but just wait till the v-spec/nur/evo version is released...........

Agreed. The entry model R35GTR is really aimed at the luxury equiped 911 Turbo not the GT3 or GT2. But R35 GTR N1 anyone? :P

Wheels' finger on the pulse is comparable to a mortician.

porsche_gt2_nurburgring_time.jpg

that "response to the GT-R's time" set by the GT2 was back in August, well before Nissan's lap time was set. The GT-R set out to take on the 911 Turbo's time, and it did it, but then it was suggested that they might gun for the GT2's time seeing as they were so close to it... would have been a bonus, but not the point of the exercise.

Goddamn Wheels is like the Today Tonight or Current Affair of motoring journalism... sensationalist badly researched garbage.

Goddamn Wheels is like the Today Tonight or Current Affair of motoring journalism... sensationalist badly researched garbage.

Australian motoring "journalism" has been this way for years and will continue to be this way. It's the "bare minimum" approach to research whereby rumours are treated as facts and opinions are reality.

What I'm personally really waiting for is to see the new car in tarmac events Like Targa Tassie, maybe even with some official Factory support to match Subaru's effort etc. Wonder what it would take to get Jimmy outa the Porka............

Suspicion conformed..............

Direct from the GTR chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno

RE: TOKYO 2007: THE SKY'S THE LIMIT

Those words were selected carefully from the true comment below. The above comment is false.

"Mizuno claimed a time of 7minutes 38 seconds, compared with 7:43 for a Porsche 911 GT3 and 7:32 for a Carrera GT, but he was anxious to point out that there had been "two wet patches on the circuit." Indeed, he mentioned the "wet patches" so many times that you wondered why Nissan simply hadn't waited for a dry day. Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world." Bizarrely, Nissan admitted to having different test drivers for different lapping. While Chief Test Driver Toshio Suzuki operates in the 7:30-7:40 range, his right-hand man is a 7:40-7:50 man."

Edited by fieds83
Those words were selected carefully from the true comment below. The above comment is false.

"Mizuno claimed a time of 7minutes 38 seconds, compared with 7:43 for a Porsche 911 GT3 and 7:32 for a Carrera GT, but he was anxious to point out that there had been "two wet patches on the circuit." Indeed, he mentioned the "wet patches" so many times that you wondered why Nissan simply hadn't waited for a dry day. Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world." Bizarrely, Nissan admitted to having different test drivers for different lapping. While Chief Test Driver Toshio Suzuki operates in the 7:30-7:40 range, his right-hand man is a 7:40-7:50 man."

Link please

Two different quotes and two different interpretations.

Now if you believe that using cut slicks would enable the GTR into the 7:30 then your dreaming.

We shall see when the first production GTR actually tries to tackle the ring, whether or not its as fast as the CGT.

7:27.82 167.201 km/h -- Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, 641 PS/1230 kg

7:32* -- 164.071 km/h -- Pagani Zonda F, 650 PS/1230 kg

7:32* -- 164.071 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT2, 530 PS/ 1440 kg

7:32.18 - 164.071 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT2, 530 PS/ 1440 kg

7:32.44 163.911 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg

7:33 --- 163.708 km/h -- Pagani Zonda F, 602 PS/ 1371 kg

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

    • 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.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
    • Well this shows me the fuel pump relay is inside the base of the drivers A Pillar, and goes into the main power wire, and it connects to the ignition. The alarm is.... in the base of the drivers A Pillar. The issue is that I'm not getting 12v to the pump at ignition which tells me that relay isn't being triggered. AVS told me the immobiliser should be open until the ignition is active. So once ignition is active, the immobiliser relay should be telling that fuel pump relay to close which completes the circuit. But I'm not getting voltage at the relay in the rear triggered by the ECU, which leaves me back at the same assumption that that relay was never connected into the immobiliser. This is what I'm trying to verify, that my assumption is the most likely scenario and I'll go back to the alarm tech yet again that he needs to fix his work.      Here is the alarms wiring diagram, so my assumption is IM3A, IM3B, or both, aren't connected or improper. But this is all sealed up, with black wiring, and loomed  
×
×
  • Create New...