Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Name: V35 (Skyline) GT-R

Company: Nissan Entertainment Europe

Release Date: 2007 or Carlos Ghosn dying/being sacked, whichever comes first.

Rumoured Specification: 450+hp VQ32DETT, ATTESA-Pro, motor-assisted spool up turbos, 6-speed paddle semi-automatic gearbox. V8 option ruled out since Nissan USA was found out to thought the GT-R was some kind of SUV vehicle...

Notes: By 2007, the new V36 Skyline will be ready for realease, just in time to co-incide with the release of the "Old" new GT-R... I think Carlos hasn't been honest with us...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29715-v35-skyline/#findComment-605959
Share on other sites

Since the introduction of the R34 Skyline GT-R in 1998, the question of whether the GT-R would survive the near future or not, was highly discussed in the automotive world - especially among Skyline enthusiasts. With the revelation of the GT-R Concept at the Tokyo Motor Show 2001, Nissan has finally ended these discussions. The radical GT-R Concept gives an impression of what the replacement of the Skyline GT-R (due 2004) might look like. If the car will still be called Skyline GT-R is not sure, yet, but chances are high the Skyline part of the name will be dropped and the car will simply be badged Nissan GT-R.

Thanks to computer games like Gran Turismo, the Skyline GT-R has become famous the world over during the past few years, so there is no more reason to reduce GT-R sales to domestic shores, only. Hence, Nissan finally plans to sell the car globally (maybe badged Infiniti in the US), in left-hand- and right-hand-drive form.

Radically different to the R34 GT-R, the GT-R Concept’s front facia appears impressive due to its width, but otherwise quite featureless. Narrow headlights flank each side of the body and blend into black cooling vents to the bottom, thus enhancing the impression of a wide and low body. Apart from the black grille and bumper assembly with its vast air intake openings, there is no distraction of the even body surface. Following the sweep of the wheel arch, the lights extend to the back, onto the long hood. Basically, what the face lacks is a definition of characteristic features instead of the current simple facia. The lights’ design is a nice feature, but I reckon the front could still use some more dedication to give it a more distinctive and balanced appearance.

Standing on huge wheels, the GT-R Concept’s side view is really pleasing, but still aggressive, with distinctive front-wheel arches that start off copying the hood’s lines and then abruptly descent into small side-vents, and rear-wheel arches reminiscent of those seen on the Aston Martin Vanquish. Similar to Nissan’s new Z-Car, the waist-line is rather high, leaving space for relatively narrow side windows only. The roof extends all the way back to the rear, which is dominated by the characteristic round tail-lights and wide exhaust pipes on either side below them - a little like a 1968 Corvette Stingray.

Nissan says, the stage of design is similar to that of the Z-Car when it was first introduced as a concept, so detail changes to the exterior are very likely. Hopefully Nissan won’t change too much.

The engine choice is still much of a speculation. Rumors vary between turbo-charged V6 and V8 or normally aspirated V8 (at least for international markets), which are expected to produce between 335hp and 450hp. Unfort-unately, the days of the fabulous RB26DETT appear to be counted, but at least the new car will continue to use ATTESA, the GT-R’s computer-controlled all-wheel-drive system. New for the coming GT-R will be variable damping control for the suspension and a paddle-shift six-speed gearbox.

The Concept is dominated by light-weight materials like aluminium and carbonfiber which will hopefully make it onto the production model. Thanks to its lower kerb weight and (hopefully) more power, the new GT-R should be even quicker than the current version.

Looking at the new V35 Sedans, one quickly notices they have lost all similarity with Skylines of the past, whereas the GT-R Concept keeps the round taillights, which had been the most easily identifiable trait of previous Skylines, and other mechanical features we had known from the Skyline GT-R so far. Keeping this in mind, simply badging the car Nissan GT-R seems quite paradox - Nissan think over it again! The GT-R has always been a Skyline…and should always be!

Just info bout GT-R... :headspin:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29715-v35-skyline/#findComment-605970
Share on other sites

Just info bout GT-R... :headspin:

Where did you pull that article from Milk*? It sounds very outdated.

Oh, and the GT-R Concept vehicle from the '01 Tokyo Motor Show was just a enginless and drivetrainless mock-up. Like a pre-pre-prototype body/interior, with wheels on it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29715-v35-skyline/#findComment-605994
Share on other sites

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...