Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I noticed a thread started about quarter mile times for a standard R35 GT-R...

So, curiousity got me thinking what would be the best quarter mile time achieved for each of the models in standard, factory specification. I believe that the R34 can achieve high 12 second times running on standard equipment. If anyone can add quicker times than those listed below, please feel free to post these with supporting evidence. :)

R32 GT-R: 13.7s

R33 GT-R: 13.8s

R34 GT-R: 12.98s

R35 GT-R: 11.89s

Edited by Shinrai
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/283646-gt-r-quarter-mile-times/
Share on other sites

my car was the test car for HPI and appeared on the cover of the GTR special no.1...bog stock it ran 12.9.

EDIT: sorry it actually had a HKS catback exhaust and M's pod filters fitted. Everything else was standard.

Edited by DiRTgarage

The quarter mile times I have seen vary on the internet and published magazines.

Just from memory I remember seeing...

R32 GTR: 13.7 secs (Wheels Magazine 1992) to 12.8 secs

R33 GTR: 13.8 secs

R34 GTR: 12.9 secs and 12.7 secs for the V-Spec II N1 Version (Wheels Magazine 2002).

my car was the test car for HPI and appeared on the cover of the GTR special no.1...bog stock it ran 12.9.

EDIT: sorry it actually had a HKS catback exhaust and M's pod filters fitted. Everything else was standard.

Is that an R32 that you are talking about? It is quite interesting that 13.7 is mentioned as the quarter mile achievable for the earlier revision of the RB26 engine but you mention that 12.9 was achieved. I guess it depends on the driver. I guess a stock R33 could achieve a very similar time although with a slightly heavier weight it might be a fraction of a second slower

That and from memory, the R34 GTR is lighter in weight + a bit more torque.

Oh yes, I am aware of those benefits too. I agree that would add to the quicker time. :D

Edited by Shinrai

Impressive numbers but i assume they test with great drivers and dump that clutch hard on redline; not the way we would treat our cars....well at least i wouldnt.

I know the r34 gtr's new turbines produce better low end torque to help with the launch resulting in the better time.

That and from memory, the R34 GTR is lighter in weight + a bit more torque.

you'll find its more to do with some other interesting factors...

fuel, tyres, gearbox etc etc.

Back in what, 1992, a RB26 wouldn't make the power it would today, nor the speed (r34 gearing is different)

You would need to put a R32, R33 & R34 together TODAY, and test. That would be more accurate.

Also did motor test on a drag strip? Were the others tested on a drag strip?

A R34 certainly isn't lighter :down:

you'll find its more to do with some other interesting factors...

fuel, tyres, gearbox etc etc.

Back in what, 1992, a RB26 wouldn't make the power it would today, nor the speed (r34 gearing is different)

You would need to put a R32, R33 & R34 together TODAY, and test. That would be more accurate.

Also did motor test on a drag strip? Were the others tested on a drag strip?

A R34 certainly isn't lighter :D

True about the gearing in the R34 GTR.

Was not too sure where Wheels magazine tested the car, I will have to read the article again.

The quarter mile times I posted are from a mix media, internet and magazines.

Publish articles are more solid prof then from an internet website, unless its an official website of some sort... To me it is just an overall idea of how fast the cars are.

I notice when Wheels Mag redo a segment on the R32 GTR, they just put the 13.7 secs (Claimed back in 1992) seem like they don't not bother testing it as it has been done...

Just from doing a bit of reading, the R32 GTR weights about 1430 kg, the R34 GTR is about 1540 kg and the R33 GTR (websites have said) 1750 kg...

So in relation to the R34 GTR being lighter then the R33 GTR.

Any clarification for the weight in's of the cars would be welcome...

:down:

Just from doing a bit of reading, the R32 GTR weights about 1430 kg, the R34 GTR is about 1540 kg and the R33 GTR (websites have said) 1750 kg...

So in relation to the R34 GTR being lighter then the R33 GTR.

Any clarification for the weight in's of the cars would be welcome...

:thumbsup:

There is no way that a R33 weighs 1750kg... Which websites are incorrectly stating that?

R33 GT-R is 1530kg and the V-Spec version is 1540kg. So the the R33 and R34 are almost identical in weight bearing precedence to the fact that it is the superior components on the R34 that results in the better performance.

As above the R33 GTR weights 10kg lighter than the R34, but 50kg heavier than an R32, look at a website with real specs, there is no way the R33 added a couple hundred kilograms...

R33, 1530kg (non Vspec):

http://www.jbskyline.net/R33/GTR/Specs/

R32, 1480kg (non Vspec):

http://www.jbskyline.net/R32/GTR/Specs/

Do the math :thumbsup:

There is no way that a R33 weighs 1750kg... Which websites are incorrectly stating that?

R33 GT-R is 1530kg and the V-Spec version is 1540kg. So the the R33 and R34 are almost identical in weight bearing precedence to the fact that it is the superior components on the R34 that results in the better performance.

- http://www.r33gtr.com/r33_gtr_info.html

But that was stated as the V-Spec Version... I remember V-Spec versions of the R32 and R33 GTR's were a bit heavier.

It also does mention 1530kg.

Anyway, going by some_cs_student site and the my one looks like it is 1530kg (Non V-Spec).

So correction to my 2nd post in this thread, the R33 GTR is lighter then the R34 GTR.

As above the R33 GTR weights 10kg lighter than the R34, but 50kg heavier than an R32, look at a website with real specs, there is no way the R33 added a couple hundred kilograms...

R33, 1530kg (non Vspec):

http://www.jbskyline.net/R33/GTR/Specs/

R32, 1480kg (non Vspec):

http://www.jbskyline.net/R32/GTR/Specs/

Do the math :D

Thanks Gareth!

I noticed a thread started about quarter mile times for a standard R35 GT-R...

So, curiousity got me thinking what would be the best quarter mile time achieved for each of the models in standard, factory specification. I believe that the R34 can achieve high 12 second times running on standard equipment. If anyone can add quicker times than those listed below, please feel free to post these with supporting evidence. :D

R32 GT-R: 13.7s

R33 GT-R: 13.8s

R34 GT-R: 12.98s

R35 GT-R: 11.89s

R32 GT-R: 13.1s (refer article below, its not the clearest scan)

r32_review1_37.jpg

I think it is a bit unfortunate that with the R35 having been released it has made it seem that the RB series cars are a bit sluggish.. But when you look through the current wheel/motor, have a look at performance time for some of the quick cars that are in there...

XR6T: 13.5

SS: 13.4

CLUBBIE: 13.5

EVO X: 13.9

RS6:12.1

M3 (AUTO): 12.9

CLS63 AMG: 12.8

M3 (MAN) 13.2

911 CARRERA S: 12.6

Nissan claims Wheels mag

R32 13.7

R33 13.5

R34 13.8

Wheels mag

R33 12.7

R34 13.1

Article in previous post

R32 13.1

I was pretty sure one of the aussie mags got a 12.9 out of the R32, but I could not find the article, but Wheels first test of an Aussi R32 is 13.7,

It is interesting that the fastest time mentioned here for the R33 GT-R is quicker than the fastest R32 GT-R time. I would have thought with the slightly lighter body weight that the R32 would have had the advantage.

Either way they are all great cars.

By the way, I'd love a R35... Just might need to wait a few years for them to come down in price. :P

Edited by Shinrai

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

    • @Kapr Haha yeah thats the one. I missed that you had a built up engine, I wouldn't want to run it on there either then. It was good in my situation just to replace the original turbo on a stock engine. @MBS206Yep definitely not a replacement for anything name brand
    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
×
×
  • Create New...