Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

someone please explain to me a few things.

1) Why this R32 was a whisker away from lapping the ring faster than the BRAND NEW R35?..15 years ago!

2) Why is it a car that is more over 15 years old can do that?

and

3) What it says about the current car

7.38* -- 161.628 km/h -- Nissan GT-R, *company test driver Suzuki, www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123066?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*#40

7.38.56 - 161.578 km/h -- Nissan R32 GT-R

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mqjnwbji13k
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ummmm, it tells me that the R32 was definately not Stock! :P

Here is a nice list:

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThrea...0&tID=10073

Looks like the same list you got it from infact!

Interesting that even the 1001hp Veyron is whipped by the R35

7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)

Though wheels were probably babying it.....

Edited by GTS4nMore
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3435019
Share on other sites

The honour roll: 10 fastest production cars at the Nordschleife (rounded to the nearest second):

Pagani Zonda F Clubsport: 7min 28sec

Porsche Carrera GT: 7:28

Porsche 997 GT 2: 7:32

Koenigsegg CCR: 7:34

Nissan GT-R prototype: 7:38

Mercedes SLR McLaren: 7:40

Porsche 911 Turbo: 7:40

Bugatti Veyron: 7:40

Corvette Z06: 7:42

Porsche 911 GT3: 7:42

i dont see no r32 there

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3435021
Share on other sites

aha...

the P901 Project (codename for R32 GTR from back in April 1987) was tweaked and tuned at Nurburgring to beat the Porsche 944 (sound familiar?)... and on the 10th of October 1988 it made a best time of 8 minutes 20 seconds... beating the Porsche which was timed at 8 minutes 45 seconds.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3435076
Share on other sites

The R33 GTR was the first production car to do sub 8mins. R32 got no where near it. But the sub 8min was never officially confirmed.

It was actually confirmed officially by nissan at the time. It's really only rumours recently (due to revised talk about skylines all over the net) disputing this fact doing the rounds that it wasn't officially confirmed.

I remember seeing it again recently on some sort of official Nissan literature and it's on the Nissan GTR launch website as well.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3435461
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting proposition though.

On A PURE POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO BASIS:

We have 1750 (odd kg) / 353 kw (flywheel) for the R35 - GTR which costs anywhere from 80,000 - 160,000 AUD new.

So we could assume (and yes this is the contentious part) that we have a drivetrain loss of approximately 15 %

So now we have 1750 Kg / 300 Kw (at the wheels) which yields 5.83 Kg per kilowatt (at the wheels)

The power required of an R32 GTR to meet this is 1500 Kg / 5.83 = 257.3 Kw (at the wheels)

Far as I know this figure should be pretty easily achievable (most probably on standard internals too). Further it could be done quite cheaply.

So forgetting the fact that most R32's are getting pretty tired and the fact that you would likely be KILLED on top speed (we have not compared drag ratios) as well as cornering and Braking (unless you have spent the time and money and have these covered too.

I reckon 260-280 awkw for an ol R32 is less than ~$15000 away (assuming engine don't go boom which it may).

Purchase price of $25,000 (we after a pretty good example). Total cost of R32 GTR @ 260+ awKW = $40,000 and surely this is a conservative estimate!

Something to think about anyway...

My point is, I suppose that an R32 GTR is STILL a performance bargain if you have the dedication (obsession?) to keep it in good nick.

A good 280 awkw R32 GTR vs stock R35 GTR drag is required!

i'm just jealus.. :P - I WANT ONE

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3446957
Share on other sites

yeah this r35 11.7 second quarter got me thinking how much do i need to do to get my 32 to beat it in a drag.

i was contempt in my belief that although only by a lil bit the 32 had the quickest quarter mile out of all the gtr's, then they had to go and bring in this new 1 and screw that up for me. Thanks Mr Nissan.

have to wait and see what a modified r35 can bust down the quarter and if its up to the challenge of the crazy times 32's have put down over the years

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3446983
Share on other sites

WTH.

That thing is ugly.

I don't even think you could call it a car.

Oh yes, it's a car alright.

All that from only 2.6 litres, without a turbo in sight either.

Ugly? Mmmm riiiight. That's the most important thing afterall, isn't it?

The ultimate track day weapon, bar none. not much good for taking the kids to school, or doing the shopping though. An R35 GTR would be fine for those duties.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3448182
Share on other sites

That thing is ugly. I don't even think you could call it a car.

So are R33s. But what invalidates the R33 GT-R's 7:59 "production car" time is the slicks, removal of speed limiter, and non-standard boost....not its looks.

It can be road registered in its country of origin. Its built in production volumes. Your dislike of it doesn't get rid of the facts.

Yes, there are plenty of countries where the car can't be road registered. But then, the Enzo and Veyron can't be road registered in Australia. The Porsche 959 couldn't be registered in the US. Yet the times they pull would still be considered valid.

Yes its a track day special. But then so is a M3 CSL or 911 GT3 RS etc and no-one would disregard their results just because they're "track day" specials.

Yes they're also very compromise on the road. But then again, so is your typical supercar like the Zonda, as Top Gear showed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drhoArQAXDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZdU-d9RL0A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuI0OPavDn0

The Radical SR8 is the fastest road legal car around the Nordschleife that you can buy straight off the showroom floor, assuming you've got the balls to drive it that hard.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/190796-r32-vs-r35/#findComment-3452826
Share on other sites

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...