Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Here's a link to the R35 GT-R in testing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBifjuV_WUA&feature=user

Nissan have indicated that they are taking this very serious as the GT-R's racing heritage is so important. I know very little about the series though I thought the race car had very little in common with the road car, same as the v8 supercars in Aust. Therefore it's simply a case of the biggest wallet wins, provided they can buy the right talent?

Therefore the race car this year will only have progressed in a similar sort of fashion to that it would have done anyway whether it is a R35 GT-R shell or not.

Am I right in my thinking?

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203298-new-gt-r-gt500-in-testing/
Share on other sites

Unlike the V8's which use 1960's NASCAR technology, the R35 still uses some factory parts including the gearbox. comparing the two is like comparing chocolate and shit ;)

I'm sure there is alot more in common between the race R35 and the production R35 then we think.

Unlike the V8's which use 1960's NASCAR technology, the R35 still uses some factory parts including the gearbox. comparing the two is like comparing chocolate and shit ;)

I'm sure there is alot more in common between the race R35 and the production R35 then we think.

if that is true it will be a big change from all other current Super GT cars which use conventional sequential boxes not DSGs.

and there is very little in common with the road going car, having seen and even touched the new R35 Super GT car it is just like most other Japanese Super GT cars. purpose built race car with a dry carbon body that resembles the road car. that's it.

if that is true it will be a big change from all other current Super GT cars which use conventional sequential boxes not DSGs.

Indeed. I'm trying to think of where i read that it uses teh same box. cant remember now :) hope I'm right.

Its not really fair to compare the super taxis to the gt500 cars - the gt cars have about 150hp less and are a couple of seconds a lap quicker. Neither are too close to production cars, they are just meant to look similar.

gt500 has long banned some of the gtr's production stuff like 4wd, not sure if the gearbox will be an issue as DSG isn't that dissimilar to a straight cut sequential box in shift time (and might be less reliable in racing conditions anyway).

Can't wait to see this car on track, I might head up to Malaysia in June to see it run

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...