Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

imo the way they should've "compared" the GTRs was to find volunteers who are good drivers who have seriously modded their own 32/33/34 gtrs, brought them out to the track for a day and let them go for it. after a day of racing as it were obtain the best results for the 32/33/34 & 35 GTRs and compare...

bet the results would have been different...

Except that had already been done in Japan and the results were different but not by as much as you think they would be.

Big woop a modified car that's faster than a standard car... that proves precisely nothing.

  • 2 weeks later...

This ... is ... oddly ... painful ... agreeing ... and ... not ... arguing ... with ... scathing.

Are you guys just completely blinded.... the thing about gtr(s)... They were RelativelY cheap for the performance... they got that performance from thier "newer, better" tech.. now... lets stick with the old tech because why? its heavy and old... but atleast it made less power....?

The r35 looked at from the point of view of another evolution of the GTR is an improvement in almost every way... except as the same with all the evolutions so far.. is heavier to comply with new standards and "cleaner" well... same thing yea? all gtrs are a bit heavy anyways.... ask any owner punting their car through a corner at any speed.

the r35 isnt good enough because?

better weight distribution? anyone gone to check the balance?

better power delivery.

hopefully better torque distribution controller logic but looks to similar.

better gear shift? downshift is better than allot of dsg lookalikes i've seen.

better suspension.

better braking capabilities.

better 0-100-0 times?

screw the old cast iron rb..... bring on the lighter more compact vr... cant wait to see a higher reving version released by nismo.

Edited by gts-4 dreamer
has he changed the tyres?

Nah he hasnt, i think he wants to put michelin's on it in the near future, or continentals...

he's only using it as a family car, its been a thing he's always wanted to buy.

He wants to keep it stock, bar putting on a a gtr steering wheel, changing the worn leather gear knob and also put ball-bearing turbo's instead of ceramic's...

Edited by gunns
This ... is ... oddly ... painful ... agreeing ... and ... not ... arguing ... with ... scathing.

Are you guys just completely blinded.... the thing about gtr(s)... They were RelativelY cheap for the performance... they got that performance from thier "newer, better" tech.. now... lets stick with the old tech because why? its heavy and old... but atleast it made less power....?

The r35 looked at from the point of view of another evolution of the GTR is an improvement in almost every way... except as the same with all the evolutions so far.. is heavier to comply with new standards and "cleaner" well... same thing yea? all gtrs are a bit heavy anyways.... ask any owner punting their car through a corner at any speed.

the r35 isnt good enough because?

better weight distribution? anyone gone to check the balance?

better power delivery.

hopefully better torque distribution controller logic but looks to similar.

better gear shift? downshift is better than allot of dsg lookalikes i've seen.

better suspension.

better braking capabilities.

better 0-100-0 times?

screw the old cast iron rb..... bring on the lighter more compact vr... cant wait to see a higher reving version released by nismo.

Yes the R35 is a big step up from the old GTR's. Highly modified GTR's (costing about the same as an R35 in total) wouldn't be far behind re performance, but tech-wise the R35 blasts away.

A big difference i find is the old GTR's are like a platform upon which boundless kW can be extracted. That makes it really exciting, like opening up a massive easter egg with little wastegates rattling inside.

The R35, from the reports, appears to be an awesome purpose built sports car but without the strength to be pushed 50-60% harder (like 32/3/4's).

So in that sense it's becoming an 'owners' car, if you will, rather than a modifier's car. It's so great (and pushed closer to it's mechanical limits) compared to yester-gears GTR's that it can't really have too much modifying done (without re-engineering the manifolds/head/block/rotating assembly/tranny etc.).

It's already so well honed and balanced it bores me.

Edited by R338OY
A big difference i find is the old GTR's are like a platform upon which boundless kW can be extracted. That makes it really exciting, like opening up a massive easter egg with little wastegates rattling inside.

just imagine the amount of power R35's will be making in another few months time after the ECU upgrades start coming through

big power is fine for going fast in a straight line, but enjoyable driving in real-world conditions requires good tractability and throttle adjustability in corners (unlike the light-switch style power delivery of big rwkW 32/3/4/ GT-Rs)

the whole point with the R35 is that it feels nice and strong through most of the rev range... not 3500~4000rpm of torquelessness like you get with RB26's

Comparisions should be stock v stock then worked v worked.

You can't compare apples with oranges and to suggest you can is rediculous.

Either way stock v stock or worked v worked the r35 people mover will still come out ontop.

Why? simply it has newer, better technology...... with any luck this new platform(like the old one) will be re-bodied & tweaked for a few models to come for us all to enjoy @ some stage.

no need

the black Hi-Octane R32, that has been modified in pretty much every way imaginable and extensively lightened, ran 59 seconds at Tsukuba. a standard R35 on run-flat tires ran a 1min 3sec.

erm; not to say that the new GTR is a POS but 4 seconds a lap on a 1 min circuit is having

bits of your anatomy that you might choose to sit on handed to you. They're not even "close"

times. Half a second would be "close"...

Regards,

Saliya

erm; not to say that the new GTR is a POS but 4 seconds a lap on a 1 min circuit is having

bits of your anatomy that you might choose to sit on handed to you. They're not even "close"

times. Half a second would be "close"...

Regards,

Saliya

Erm...what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

But gee that'd also be a pointless comparision wouldn't it?

Erm...what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

But gee that'd also be a pointless comparision wouldn't it?

FFS, the difference is irrelevant: yes, it would be a pointless comparison.

The gist of the post I quoted was "an R35 is as good as an extensively-modified R32 because the R35 is 'only' 4 sec slower"

4 sec is a large-enough margin on a 1-min circuit to refute that. After 15 laps, or 15 minutes of racing,the R35 is lapped.

Clearly, then, it's not as good as an extensively-modified R32 (or whatever other thing runs sub-1-min times, there are a few).

Nothing to do with the level of modification, or stock-vs-stock, or modified-vs-modified

(though I can see from your previous posts that you think this is important).

Just to do with "those times aren't really in the same ballpark".

Does anybody seriously think that a stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 ? I don't think so.

Regards,

Saliya

FFS, the difference is irrelevant: yes, it would be a pointless comparison.

The gist of the post I quoted was "an R35 is as good as an extensively-modified R32 because the R35 is 'only' 4 sec slower"

4 sec is a large-enough margin on a 1-min circuit to refute that. After 15 laps, or 15 minutes of racing,the R35 is lapped.

Clearly, then, it's not as good as an extensively-modified R32 (or whatever other thing runs sub-1-min times, there are a few).

Nothing to do with the level of modification, or stock-vs-stock, or modified-vs-modified

(though I can see from your previous posts that you think this is important).

Just to do with "those times aren't really in the same ballpark".

Does anybody seriously think that a stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 ? I don't think so.

Regards,

Saliya

No...no...no

If you'd be good enough to re-read the post you are quoting me on now, you'd see I said "what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

Which I believe is as relative as the r35 v black Hi-Octane R32 comparison.

Nothing to do with "stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 "

We could compare any of the r35's running around in superGT atm to the black Hi-Octane R32 and see what happens...but hey that'd be ridiculous also would it not?

The stock for stock comparison is far fairer comparison re: 90's technology v current technology...get it yet? It's a comparison between 2 benchmark cars for their time that share the same linage, not a RACE

I can't help it if you own an r32 GTR and feel you need to defend it's reputation against it's bigger brother to the death, I don't get it!

black Hi-Octane R32 is a highly developed car with the latest and best available and sure a hell isn't running 1990's technology...so?

The point was mute at every level wasn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of the gtr's are lesser than the other, each was an evolution of it's older brother, an absolute monster of it's day and has blown my mind with every step.

If you don't compare stock for stock how can you gauge the cars development over it's model run?

Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless.

No...no...no

If you'd be good enough to re-read the post you are quoting me on now, you'd see I said "what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

Which I believe is as relative as the r35 v black Hi-Octane R32 comparison.

Not sure what your point is. A comparison between car C and car A has nothing to do with the comparison between car A and car B.

Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless.

... Aaaaaaanyway, to save time, I'm invoking Godwin's law right now and I bow out of further discussion on this point :)

Regards,

Saliya

Haha groovy......probably wise

Or you could pull out somemore unrelated quotes, take them out of the context of the post and misinterpret them again.

Either way Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless. Indeed

... Aaaaaaanyway, to save time, I'm invoking Godwin's law right now

I'm quite curious to see, in a thread about different models of GT-R, how you're going to compare one of the cars or one of the people here to Adolf Hitler.

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

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...