Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well into the top 10, being 4wd and basically purpose built it will flog em on the track....also the straight they use isn't huge so terminal speed shouldnt come into it. Its a stretch but it may well choke your chicken... as stated purpose built 4wd it will be right at home.

Edited by madbung

One things certain it'll be quicker than the monaro......that'll do :(

I still reckon it'll surprise a few with it's tractability regardless of weight, none of the top 10 cars are quarter mile animals...quick but they don't put the GTR to shame and the majority are also rwd..well balanced yeah but the nissan should be pretty flat and quick around that track.

There's no way it will make the top 10. These aren't your 'everyday supercars'; they're hyper cars. I love GTR's as much as the next guy, but basically every car in the top 10 is in another league.

Even with my Skyline blinkers on I'd have to agree.

Would love to be proved wrong though.

Would the 180k limiter be an issue on that track?

Don't forget how well the R35 GTR did at the timeattack. 1.01 stock... look up other stock cars around tsukuba.

The 360 Challenge Stradale did 1.02 around Tsukuba, and is in 14th place on the top gear times.

So yeah i agree with Snowy. Faster than the GT3, but slower than the Carerra GT. Around 7th-15th is my guess. I just hope it's not raining when they do it, i hate when they test cars in the wet, hard to judge against other cars then.

Nismo Skyline GT-R Z Tune 1 min 01.150 secs

Ferrari 360 Challenge Stra' 1 min 02.440 secs

Lamborghini Gallardo 1 min 03.605 secs

Honda NSX-R 1 min 03.920 secs

McLaren F1 1 min 04.620 secs

Porsche 997 Turbo 1 min 04.730 secs

Murcielago 1 min 04.760 secs

Z-Tune 1 min 05.100 secs*(diff day diff driver)

EVO IX RS 1 min 05.528 secs

997 Carrera 4 1 min 05.980 secs

Corvette Z06 1 min 06.020 secs

Lancer Evo IX 1 min 06.060 secs

NA1 NSX-R 1 min 06.198 secs

Nismo GT-R S Tune 1 min 06.232 secs (340 bhp)

Ferrari F40 1 min 06.460 secs

WRX STI SPEC-C 1 min 06.651 secs ( Current STI)

NA1 NSX-R 1 min 06.80 secs (same race as F40)

BMW M5 1 min 06.560 secs

STI S204 1 min 06.800 secs

BMW M6 1 min 07.434 secs

350Z S Version 1 min 08.110 secs

BMW M3 1 min 08.200 secs

Audi RS4 1 min 08.368 secs

Supra Euro Version 330 bhp 1 min 08.460 secs

Mazda RX-7 1 min 08.70 secs

RX-8 A Spec 1 min 09.430 secs

Nissan 300ZX 1 min 10.70 secs

Im gonna say 12 to 15

However I think below gets best quote of this thread :(

smoke the tyres harder than a VL at a wedding so i'll go 11th behind the Ascari KZ1

Anyone got that photo?? hahahaha

maybe..it did well around the 'ring as its a LONG track...on a short track the more nimble cars should school it...i think ur right..like 10/11th...its 1740kg and 480hp..the weight just seems to be too much of a problem on a short track...

Except it's already "school"ing the light cars around short tracks such as Tsukuba.

small track... turbo power delivery... depends on usable power, the length of gearing vs power band... its great to have 5 kajillion jigawats... but if your having a hard time keeping yourself in that band then its pretty useless... yes I know they car is a 4lt tt.. so in theory should have excellent mid range but all comparisons Ive read have not been very tight courses.... almost anything with a reasonable shift seems to get power down on those tracks.

small courses with hard turning.... all that weight changing direction and not so much use of power could be something exceptionally crap... then again... the car probably is tuned pretty well and stock turbs would deliver power pretty low in the range... cant wait to see the effects on turn in with the newer system and .. well... we know if it manages to turn it will exit pretty fast..........

scary ride though shift the low slung wieght... well atleast it wont be so easy to flip... provided your on tar.

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...