Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Been looking through as many photos and specs as possible. Can't wait to see this beast. When I saw, this photo, however, it got me a bit concerned.

2008-Nissan-GT-R-Powertrain-1280x96.jpg

As you can see the gearbox is located at the back, which is great for weight distribution. The concern I have is the shaft that travels from the engine to the gearbox. This shaft will be spinning up to 7-7.5k rpm. For a shaft of this length to be spinning at that speed, it would need to be perfectly balanced. This is very difficult to achieve. That is why formula one have gone to V8's. Because the shorter shaft is easier to balance at those high speeds. If the gearbox was in the front, it wouldn't be a problem as the shaft would be spinning a lot slower due to being geared down. This is how most rear wheel drives operate.

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/192496-weakness-of-the-new-gtr/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i disagree im afraid on this point

F1 went to v8's because of the regulations. The FIA wanted to cut costs and thought this could be achieved by dropping 2 cylinders.

It wasnt because of drive shafts.

Aston martin and a couple of other modern supercars use this same technology and they seem to have no problems with the shaft not being balanced properly... also keep in mind that the material the shaft is made of is a lot lighter these days than the oldschool chunk of metal.... lot less forces acting outwards due to weight.

F1 cars are shorter stroke high RPM cars... we're talking about a GTR here which will see half those RPM's in day to day use.

Will be interesting to see what the GT500 platform is, as that's usually what the aftermarket performance world tries to emulate.

I'm not doubting the Nissan engineers. I'm sure they have it all figured out. I just know that the longer you make a shaft, the harder it becomes to balance due to more and more harmonic frequencies that come into play. I just find it quite interesting :rolleyes:

i disagree im afraid on this point

F1 went to v8's because of the regulations. The FIA wanted to cut costs and thought this could be achieved by dropping 2 cylinders.

It wasnt because of drive shafts.

Have you noticed the gain of the redline they are capable of with the shorter shaft. That was more my point. A shorter shaft can be spun a lot faster.

So you think that the Nissan engineers have over seen this issue :dry:

I'm sure they have it under control :rolleyes:

Nissan engineers make a car for regular use under factory specifications... I think what the OP meant was the suitability of the technolog for high end tunes.

Nissan engineers also spent millions of dollars on oil drainage and recirculation on the RB26DETT, and we all know how well they do on a circuit.

Think about this:

By the time a conventionally-configured car is in either 5th or 6th gear, (considering both are overdrive gears) the tailshaft is actually spinning FASTER at any given engine speed than the new GTR tailshaft which will always be at 1:1 with engine revs. I also think from memory the new GTR has a composite/carbon fibre tailshaft which goes a long way to negating problems with harmonics etc

Yea, didn't think of that. Thats a good point. Didn't really think about conventional tail shafts doing that speed, but in top gears they would. Its an interesting configuration none the less. Can't wait to see it in the flesh :thumbsup:

Nissan engineers make a car for regular use under factory specifications... I think what the OP meant was the suitability of the technolog for high end tunes.

Nissan engineers also spent millions of dollars on oil drainage and recirculation on the RB26DETT, and we all know how well they do on a circuit.

Monkey you funky dummy, the Nurburgring and all the countless other extreme tests are hardly regular use.

Think about this:

By the time a conventionally-configured car is in either 5th or 6th gear, (considering both are overdrive gears) the tailshaft is actually spinning FASTER at any given engine speed than the new GTR tailshaft which will always be at 1:1 with engine revs. I also think from memory the new GTR has a composite/carbon fibre tailshaft which goes a long way to negating problems with harmonics etc

true, true- but on most old 5-speed gearboxes, 4th gear war direct anyway, so actually only 1st, 2nd and 3rd would have seen prop shaft speeds below engine speed. the thing to consider is, with the current setup, the prop shaft will be under less load at high-speed, due to the fact that while it has to transmit the same huge twisting force required to push the car through the air at speed, it won't have as much centrifugal force acting on it at the same time :thumbsup:

the only draw back with this sort of setup with a normal gearbox, is that the synchros essentially have to "brake" the speed of the propshaft as well as the reciprocating mass of the engine before selecting the next higher gear. but due to the fact that it's made from carbon/kevlar and no doubt a lot lighter than steel, and that the DSG gear pre-selection eliminates most of the synchro wear, all is well.

A few of points.

1. F1 cars do not have tail shafts.

2. Transaxles have been around for longer than carbon fibre has been used in motor cars.

3. All that Nissan have to do is to ensure that the harmonic frequency for the tail shaft is higher than the speed that the tail shaft can reach. Obviously putting the shaft being before the gearbox has a tendency to make the figure a higher number (Assuming you can't hit the redline in top gear - not true in the case of most GT-R's). As an example my old AU Foulcan has a limiter set at 180km/h to prevent this very problem.

lol people are too concerned with finding something wrong with the new GTR. i dont think nissan would be putting anything in this car without millions of R&D and testing.

Yeah, strange isn't it. You'd think that the fact that it is both ugly & over weight would be enough for most people.

Yeah, strange isn't it. You'd think that the fact that it is both ugly & over weight would be enough for most people.

thats down to personal opinion. maybe its a bit heavy but u cant argue with the times its putting out, and i rekon its hot as :happy:

WAIT WAIT HOLD PRODUCTION. INTERNET FORUM USER FINDS FLAW IN NISSAN DESIGN.

Back to the drawing board everyone... :P :P

lol :thumbsup:

Yeah, strange isn't it. You'd think that the fact that it is both ugly & over weight would be enough for most people.

:yes: Gold!!

Just a quick comment about the driveshaft. In this design, the driveshaft will see maximum RPM every time you redline the engine, meaning it will see a lot of cycles at maximum load (fatigue and all that). In a "conventional" driveshaft design, the driveshaft will only spin at redline speeds when the car is travelling at approx 200km/h+ (this varies hugely with diff ratio, obviously).

Conversely, a conventional driveshaft will see a lot more torque transmitted through it, as the engine torque is multiplied through the gearbox, whereas the new GTR driveshaft will only ever see the max engine torque (as well as impact loading under clutch dump situations etc.)

Bottom line? Probably nothing to worry about, as the Nissan Engineers would have covered it. If the shaft speeds became an issue, it's nothing to replace the single piece driveshaft with a 2 piece unit. Problem then goes away.

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

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...