Jump to content
SAU Community

Mine's Gt-r Breaks Into The 59's At Tsukuba


Recommended Posts

Mine's have posted a 59.3 around Tsukuba with their full Mine's spec GT-R. Modified suspension, ECU, exhaust, brakes etc.

mines-59.jpg

Mines’s have solidly broken into the 59’s around Tsukuba by posting a 59.367 with their modified R35 GT-R. Modifications include full Mine’s Spec III suspension (Sachs dampers, Eibach springs), Mine’s VX ROM ECU, Mine’s Silence-VX Pro Titan II exhaust and upgraded Mine’s brake rotor kit (400mm front rotors). Driving the GT-R was Tetsuya Yamano.

To compare against standard GT-Rs, the best we have seen is 1.01.9 posted by MCR when their car was still standard. Other quick times for modified cars have been a 1.00.2 by Amuse with their modified GT-R.

Photo galleries of the Mine's car in current trim as well as the amuse 1.00 car over at:

http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php?blog=4&am...p;tb=1&pb=1

i guess there would be alot more to come from it as well? Was that time with gutter interior etc. etc.? or did it still have all trim? I still dont think it could break that HKS evo time :teehee:

i guess there would be alot more to come from it as well? Was that time with gutter interior etc. etc.? or did it still have all trim? I still dont think it could break that HKS evo time :P

Standard interior minus seats which have been changed but yeah that saved a little weight.

It will be really interesting to see hwo the R35 goes at the goat track. Big heavy car and constant changes of direction. I iamgine its going to be huge dollars to get them down to the sort of weight that will make them competitive with the R34s and EVOs etc

So. hows this time compare to others?

Anyone got a list?

Standard R35 GT-R best time was 1.01.9 or so.

Z-Tune R34 GT-R was 1.00

Power House Amuse Time Attack R35 GT-R was 1.00.2 in January

Most recent Evo X does 1.06.46

Most recent STi does 1.05.95

There are a lot of other times for cars like Ferrari 430 and 360 CS but I don't know the sources of those times.

Cant compare the two just yet IMO as MINES needs more time to develop the R35, they set the benchmark very high with the R34 though

Couldn't agree more, they set the bar so high with the R34 its going to take a bit to beat it with the R35.

I for one hope they do it and set the bar even higher again :(

Standard R35 GT-R best time was 1.01.9 or so.

Z-Tune R34 GT-R was 1.00

Power House Amuse Time Attack R35 GT-R was 1.00.2 in January

Most recent Evo X does 1.06.46

Most recent STi does 1.05.95

There are a lot of other times for cars like Ferrari 430 and 360 CS but I don't know the sources of those times.

Evo did it at 00.54 mark. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vElMnlFs028

And wasnt the R34 an N1 to start with? Then on top of that they have carbon boot, carbon propshaft, titanium exhaust etc. So the car isnt exactly std weight. The N1 is already lighter, so all up could be 80-100kgs lighter then a std car.

I woudl love to tap the doors on the Mines R34 to see if it also has carbon doors...so wll be interesting to see what Mines do next to the car to get it quicker then the R34

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...