Jump to content
SAU Community

The R35 Gt-r - Is It Part Of The Skyline Legacy?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont agree at all. The r35 looks 100 times better than the r33.

a toyota minibus looks better than an R33... that's not a claim to fame.

Amazing how so much people still call the new R35 a Skyline...

http://www.freshalloy.com/site/cars/nissan...cept/home.shtml

You guys think Nissan may reconsider and label it as a new R35 Skyline GT-R?

that's the GT-R Proto dude... back then no one knew what it was gonna be called or its designation.

there's no confusion anymore its the Nissan R35 GT-R.

Hey fellas,

Assuming that the R35's looks have not been finalised, what would you want the next Skyline GT-R too look like...

Here's what I would have like the new GT-R to look like... totally awesome...

http://acn.waw.pl/iacoski/nissan_skyline_r...acoski_1280.jpg

http://acn.waw.pl/iacoski/nissan_skyline_r...acoski_1280.jpg

looks like a lancer driver was given the keys to a r34 gtr and 10k. looks like sed dude spent it all on ghey. lol

only half joking man. i rekon that if the r35 was a skyline then thats not a half bad direction to go but as it is, nissan dont need anything other than what they've got. the gtr looks seks

that's amazing how people have varied likings.... why not post up some concept of what you would have liked the new GT-R to look like... and don't tell me the new gt-r is like god-like and totally perfect. I for one, do not like it that much.

Thats what an r34 series II might have looked like if they gave it to some company that makes ott kits..

I think the r35 is a real step forward and looks awesome. I saw a pic of a photoshopped r35 of what an aftermarket r35 might look like (im pretty sure it was on saw u somewhere) and it looked even more aggressive!

GT-R_photoshop-1.jpg

lol Nissan could name the crab car a GT-R and you legally couldn't do anything about it... seeing as they own the name and all rights to it n all.

Thats what an r34 series II might have looked like if they gave it to some company that makes ott kits..

I think the r35 is a real step forward and looks awesome. I saw a pic of a photoshopped r35 of what an aftermarket r35 might look like (im pretty sure it was on saw u somewhere) and it looked even more aggressive!

GT-R_photoshop-1.jpg

the R35 will be a japanese after market tuners nirvana.

give it time. You will see.

Spunky, why the lamentations?

The car is everything it needs and then some. What the new R35 does out of the box totally blows anything you could achieve without spending mega dollars on in 32, 33, or 34 form, standard.

Just ask Giant. He will tell you.

A hopeless plug Russ, nut im sure youve seen this.

I really hope you show them what you and the car are capable of.

Im still going to try and see you, even if BB was there! :rofl::)

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...