Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

thanks mate.

I just wanted something better than the pissy little one i found.

If i ever get to the stage where i have more money than sense, i would love to build a complete replica in that colour scheme.

haha funny you should say that, I think this was the best of the 3 colour schemes. unfortunately my car is at least 6 months from the track still :blush:

tn_img_1814_sm.gif

Drunken I think he was referring to teh post before your's and the pic of Skaifes car.

As for your car - you suck! Not too much though, cause i prefer the first release of that scheme with the white on the bottom, not blue

  • 3 weeks later...
That is awesome Jet! Are you heading up for it? I only live 15 minutes away and will NOT be missing this! :P

Yup will be up there with Dad in the R31......about 15-20 Groups A/C's running in our class......thats including Terry Ashwood's GPA Winfield R32

see you there I guess.

Yup will be up there with Dad in the R31......about 15-20 Groups A/C's running in our class......thats including Terry Ashwood's GPA Winfield R32

see you there I guess.

You will indeed! So, ummmm, I know my way around Lakeside pretty well, I guess I should expect a phone call to steer the old girl? lolol

And yes Chris, I'm not much of a photographer, but I'll take a good camera out :P

  • 2 months later...

Marko I will post some pics of the R32 GRP A engine tomorrow when I have acces to a scanner as I have some nismo books that have some decent pictures in them and also have a few pics that i took while at the nismo omory factory last time I was there these are on my other computer so will post them as well. The jap spec group A GTR's ran a wet sump with external oil pump and the later JGTC cars ran a dry sump. I am not 100% but am pretty sure that the Group A spec cars where unable to run a full dry sump due to class regulations.

Hi Marko R1 these pics are of the R32 GRP A engine from the taisan/stp car these pics do not show the pump mounted to the block but will give a bit of a better idea of the sort of sump mods that were carried out. These jap spec GRP A engines definatly ran an external pump. I will post up the pics from one of my Nismo books that show the pump mounted tomorrow as i forgot to take the book to work today to scan the pics. From the R33 onwards they ran a full dry sump as these cars were obviously built to JGTC spec and were not subject to as many restrictions as the GRP A spec cars.

post-15992-1257321079_thumb.jpg

post-15992-1257321100_thumb.jpg

thanks dazmo - well that is an interesting sump extension, looks like they have used another factory cast, inverted the bottom 1/2 & welded to it, obviously functional but not pretty to look at. it doesnt look like it would have the same oil capacity as my rips sump. on the street, the 1st pot hole would smash that sump but that dont matter as its purpose built for the track (reminds me of my old gtr with the trust sump extension kit). this is why i like my rips sump as it does not hang any lower than the factory sump (perfect for those road undulations)...

i posted the same question on the gtr uk website & have this feedback:

The Gibson cars were wet sumped.

Dry sumping was not allowed in GP-A (At least not in Aussie)

They ran a extended sump with baffles (Prob very similar to what R.I.P.S build), They ran a stock style oil pump....Some people think they had an external pump that came off the water pump pulley, but that was a mechanical fuel pump.

so the final conclusion is that the group a gtr that was raced in aust had a wet sump with conventional oil pump :)

this makes those wet sump owners such as myself quite content!

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...