Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

while we're on the subject of gtr's at Bathurst.

During my sojourn to wakefield park a couple of weeks back I took time out to drive across to bathurst and pay homage to the mountain. Did 3 laps in the mighty patrols royce and probably broke some sort of record. {slowest ever lap}

I went to the museum Joke museum come souvinir shop to see if i could find any memorabilia pertaining to the gtr glory days. Not one item, no posters, No models, no references of any sort to the thrashings handed to them by Richards, Skaife and co.

The only reference I could find to a skyline in the whole joint was in a stand containing little parking notifications like.

Huindai parking only

Kia parking only

Land rover parking only

skyline parking only.

Boy do they ever hold a grudge down those parts. :(

  • Nope 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216631
Share on other sites

The R32s did not run ceramic turbos. Nissan did a run of 800 GTRs to homologate things like turbos etc. They were plain bearing steel wheeled turbos. You see them floating around from time to time and referred to, funnily enough as Grp A turbos. Doubt they are original items bu probably the same spec turbo.

When Stev Richards returned from being a test and development driver in the UK he ran the Primera run bay Garry Rogers, i believe it was the old Matt Neal Team Dynamics chassis. Though may have been a facoty car from the uK?!?!

Sorry Troy I wasn't trying to suggest they did. The homologation R32 GT-R's (aka Nismo version) had steel turbos. Ages ago I read an article in I think HPI (Maybe Zoom before it got boring) where they published a compressor map of the Group A turbo. Whether or not this was what was on Freddo's cars is a different issue as I thought Group A turbo construction other than meeting some relevent dimensions was a "free" area.

I was just trying to line up the claimed Group A cars horsepower number with an 89 shitter R32 still running ceramic turbos. Also I think there were some ex Gibson cams doing the rounds on SAU some time back. The lift/duration numbers were pretty big.

Yeah Gary Rogers ran all sorts of 2 litre nonsense. An Alfa, the Nissan. Nothing much else comes to mind but there may have been a third make.

Also fwiw I think the sprint engines ran stock rods & the endurance versions ran Carillo's. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216727
Share on other sites

What the feck??

What on earth is wrong with this topic (or fuel pressure question either for that matter)?

They were both honest, (IMO) intelligent questions!

Sorry I havn't been working with engine tuning for 30 years and know all there is to know, shit, I'm 19. lol

Edited by turbo x-trail
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216730
Share on other sites

Certainly as Craig said above with his dyno results... if it was indeed fulltime 4WD as we kinda suspect, then 315awkw would be very close to 600hp as opposed to 480hp!

Actually... Craig is yours with or "without" the restrictors?

Problem with our car at the moment as we cannot get it to run more than 1bar ATM. Dad and I haven't had enough playtime with the car yet to find the problem as we only really got it three weeks before PI. From memory the boost was sorted with the Mclaren BOV set at 1.4Bar for the 92 season....previously the boost was restricted to 1.7Bar.....so 650hp would easily achieved....but I could be wrong!

I think the restrictors if they are there would limit it to 1.7Bar....will let you know when I know.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216758
Share on other sites

while we're on the subject of gtr's at Bathurst.

During my sojourn to wakefield park a couple of weeks back I took time out to drive across to bathurst and pay homage to the mountain. Did 3 laps in the mighty patrols royce and probably broke some sort of record. {slowest ever lap}

I went to the museum Joke museum come souvinir shop to see if i could find any memorabilia pertaining to the gtr glory days. Not one item, no posters, No models, no references of any sort to the thrashings handed to them by Richards, Skaife and co.

The only reference I could find to a skyline in the whole joint was in a stand containing little parking notifications like.

Huindai parking only

Kia parking only

Land rover parking only

skyline parking only.

Boy do they ever hold a grudge down those parts. :(

Yeah no items like that, but there is a nice looking record engraved on the side of the entry gate :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216763
Share on other sites

What the feck??

What on earth is wrong with this topic (or fuel pressure question either for that matter)?

They were both honest, (IMO) intelligent questions!

Sorry I havn't been working with engine tuning for 30 years and know all there is to know, shit, I'm 19. lol

We are just stirring ya - relax :(

Problem with our car at the moment as we cannot get it to run more than 1bar ATM. Dad and I haven't had enough playtime with the car yet to find the problem as we only really got it three weeks before PI. From memory the boost was sorted with the Mclaren BOV set at 1.4Bar for the 92 season....previously the boost was restricted to 1.7Bar.....so 650hp would easily achieved....but I could be wrong!

I think the restrictors if they are there would limit it to 1.7Bar....will let you know when I know.

Full time 4WD for that car ye? (when AWD is engaged?)

*if* so 315awkw was @ 1bar... jesus. So @ the restricted 1.4bar (and if fulltime AWD) it would be 600hp or so close it wouldn't matter. 650 @ 1.7 i think is convervative :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216785
Share on other sites

I had a pair of the RS581's/N1 Group A (rebuilt by garret)on the wagon. Along with supporting engine and fuel system mods i got 373rwkw which is where the squirters ran out of squirt.

Cam, concrete mang, its what all the cool kids are doing.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216825
Share on other sites

We are just stirring ya - relax tongue.gif

lol ok

I could be forgiven for thinking otherwsie! I've had soo much shit pegged at me because of this f**king car.

Even today, driving back from the shops, a bogan guy in a VS SS commonwhore gave me shit calling it my mums car, the gayest thing on the road, are you a c0ck muncher (out the window at me). NICE was to be thanked for all your hard work lol HE HAD A VS FFS!

Edited by turbo x-trail
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216827
Share on other sites

Full time 4WD for that car ye? (when AWD is engaged?)

*if* so 315awkw was @ 1bar... jesus. So @ the restricted 1.4bar (and if fulltime AWD) it would be 600hp or so close it wouldn't matter. 650 @ 1.7 i think is convervative :(

OK...from what I have been told.....and I have no idea how we will ever really work out the exact % breakup as GMS changed it from track to track.

0: Was for launch and only engaged the front wheels at about approx. 60km/h.....we are estimating the drive to the front to be about 10-15% split

1: As tyre depletion started this was dialled in and was about 15-25% split

2: Probably the first of the wet wether settings and is approx 25-35% split

3: Full wet 40-50% split

These are only good guess's atm. What I can tell you is the car was much better behaved(e.g less understeer) at the 0 setting at PI. Dad set his fastest time of the weekend in 0.

650hp.....I think they sand bagged that figure as well.....I am actually starting to believe that they worked on getting more torque things....I have driven a couple of pretty high hp'd RB26's now and none(i mean none) develop the low down grunt these motors deliver out of a corner.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216888
Share on other sites

lol ok

I've had soo much shit pegged at me because of this f**king car.

lol....at least it's not an M35 Volvo.....I'm almost at the stage of kicking the next smartarse in the shin's (I cannot fight for shit :() that say's "I thought it was a Volvo".

Edited by Jetwreck
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5216904
Share on other sites

OK...from what I have been told.....and I have no idea how we will ever really work out the exact % breakup as GMS changed it from track to track.

0: Was for launch and only engaged the front wheels at about approx. 60km/h.....we are estimating the drive to the front to be about 10-15% split

1: As tyre depletion started this was dialled in and was about 15-25% split

2: Probably the first of the wet wether settings and is approx 25-35% split

3: Full wet 40-50% split

These are only good guess's atm. What I can tell you is the car was much better behaved(e.g less understeer) at the 0 setting at PI. Dad set his fastest time of the weekend in 0.

650hp.....I think they sand bagged that figure as well.....I am actually starting to believe that they worked on getting more torque things....I have driven a couple of pretty high hp'd RB26's now and none(i mean none) develop the low down grunt these motors deliver out of a corner.

I remember reading one of the zoom articles on either the R32 GTR or the actual interview they did with Fred himself that he was more interested in getting torque out of the engines then outright revs and or horsepower...Using the AWD to the cars advantage with massive torque would be the way to go

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/319281-r32-gtr/page/2/#findComment-5222442
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

    • As I've said elsewhere, I am using the stock intercooler piping path in the engine bay, and a return flow cooler, and making ~250 rwkW (without any effort put into trying to turn it up past there just yet) and expect to be able to make some more, and frankly, I would be perfectly happy with 260-270rwKW. This is peak road Skyline usability territory. You go past there and, sure, the car will snap necks more when it's on boost, but it will also break shit all the time, cost a (even larger) fortune in tyres, etc etc. Anyway, I also do not like the over-the-fan pipe path, and you don't have to do it.
    • I see, honestly I’m not too fussed about the looks. The only reason to go plenum is to make the piping easier instead of the classic over the rad etc. 
    • Not easy to quantify wrt something like how many fractions of a second slower it would be over 0-100. But given that a 250-300rwkW car is able to do that launch sprint in 5-6 sec (and faster with appropriate tyres, and surface)..... giving up as much as a second would feel like torture. A ~450HP capable turbo is not going to make lots of boost in the 2000-3000 rpm range. So, whilst with some boost on hand it will be faster accelerating in that rev range than your engine currently is NA, it will not feel like a fast car until the boost is solidly in. You know what your car feels like right now when you open it up at 2000rpm. if you've ever been in an actual fast car, you will appreciate that the NARB25 is.... not exciting. Well, add some boost and it will be better. But shorten the intake runners and it might not be better at all. It might come out better, but it could end up feeling the same. For me, it's not the 0-X km/h sprints that matter. It is easy to fry the tyres with anything over 200 rwkW. You can't use all the power available in 1st and 2nd anyway, you have to modulate the throttle. What matters is how the car reacts when you're driving in traffic in 4th or 5th and have maybe 2000 rpm on board, and you want/need to add some speed quickly, and don't have time for the downshift. It won't make boost, it will be all NA (at the speeds we're talking about - remember how fast you're going at 2000 in 4th! and don't plan on breaking the limit by too much.) So giving away NA torque is not what I would consider practical for a street car. And retaining that NA torque builds boost faster which makes the car faster. The flashy plenum is not actually better, unless you're looking at a track car where you can keep it on the boil all the time.  
    • So how much difference does it make you think? Like 1 second in the 0-100?  I was have smaller turbo so hopefully that spools quick GTX2871.  currently it’s NA so you can imagine pretty slow, but I do want fast accusation a little as there’s not many places I’ll be driving where I go over 80 even near me. So 0-60 and 0-80 targets   
    • Short inlet runners cost quite a bit. Dulls off the off-boost torque, and delays boost onset, because arrival of boost is driven by gas flow is a product of the ability to flow air which is torque. This is the reason that the stock manifolds have longer runners. On a 3L, or bigger, you can usually accept the compromise of giving away some torque because the extra capacity gives you a little extra to waste. But on a smaller motor, there's not a lot there to start with. Example, I swapped RB20 out of my R32, 25NeoDET in its place. The "wall of torque" that I experienced afterwards made it all worthwhile. That's because I came from RB20 land where torque is not a thing. But I would not do anything, anything at all, to reduce the low/mid torque I have now, because I remember what it is like to not have it!
×
×
  • Create New...