Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sorry for the simpleton question, but would it be a different situation if it was an r34 gtr?

I'd say so.

Then you get similar weight, more HP (in the 34) and similar traction capability, so they would be even with the 34 inching ahead the further you go.

sorry for the simpleton question, but would it be a different situation if it was an r34 gtr?

no

this is a pretty pointless thread... rwd has more potential to run the quicker time but the awd will be easier to setup and more consistent

at this power level there will be umpteen problems both will face before they even get a proper side by side run that both are happy with... even then the loser will have a million drag racers excuses

Can't help but laugh at the number of people putting their money on the GTR. They're quick, undoubtedly, but really. Check how many AWD cars are below 10 seconds in Australia, heck in the world. Now check for under 10s RWD. You'll be going for years sorting through how many RWD cars there are. They've been developing RWD drag cars for a lot longer, AWD is still playing catch up in this field. And can I ask, if you can put all your power through two wheels without spin, why do you need the front wheels working too? AWD was developed for when you couldn't do that.

In short, my money's on the GTT.

??? Lets compare apples with apples here.

Youre telling me a RWD with a H Pattern and a GT42 is going to be able to launch and put all of its power down to the ground?

LOL

Maybe search for under 10s RWD - NON AUTO.

Anyone can stick their foot/finger on the brake and stall it up.

Anyways, let us know the result once you 2 end up racing.

If i had to bet, it would be on the GTR.

Those few crucial seconds that its able to put most, if not all of the power down will see it ahead of the GTT the entire 1/4 mile. dunno about 1/2 mile though.

Yeah. the longer it goes, the more my money would shift to the GTT, but over 400m I doubt the GTT would have the power to overcome the GTRs better launch.

It'd be an interesting race, and bench racing this sort of stuff is fun.

As for RWD being more "developed" for racing, I don't think that counts in this situation. From what I can gather these cars aren't absolute straight line weapons running 2' wide slicks and build on a ladder chassis with a 4 link rear and such. They are stinking hot street cars.

If i had to bet, it would be on the GTR.

Those few crucial seconds that its able to put most, if not all of the power down will see it ahead of the GTT the entire 1/4 mile. dunno about 1/2 mile though.

if it was half mile the gt-t would win for sure. that's because it comes down to pure hp, weight, resistance, etc. traction off the line isn't as crucial.

If I were to bet, my money would be on both cars not making it to the finish line.

This really is a pointless argument.

Neither cars are really any good for drag racing, without going for a 4-link / ladderbar rear end and tubbing it, neither car will be able to take a tyre much bigger than 10" wide.

If you wanna have a drag car, buy a torana or a capri, you WILL run 10's with 450hp and slicks.

This really is a pointless argument.

That has nothing to do with it.

If it's so pointless, why are you here?

Seriously, GTFO if it's such an insult to your sensibilities.

hay mate

ill have some pretty good suspension setup and wide as f**k rims on the back ill be investing heavily on traction and keeping it down as best i can.

mickey thompson drag slicks should be good enough lol.

also throwing the whole nismo suspension arms catalogue at it

A whole nismo catalogue of parts- dose not make "good suspension" especially not for drag racing... If that's your knowledge level, expect 13-14 sec 1/4 mile times.

Oh and "wide as f**k rims" are what 10 inches??? 12 maybe? Bahahahahaha!

The GTR will break a driveshaft or half shaft while launching while the GTT kicks to the side violently at the 60ft line and kisses the wall.

And destroys the pretty carbon parts and super custom awsome go fast paint job.... yet again Bahahahahahahah!

Unless you put an auto in it, youll never catch the GTR.

Correct!

Sounds like a dyno queen to me!

Shure dose... who cares how fast a dyno queen goes....

GTR= Win

GTT dyno queen- Fail

GTT well set up and manual- Close second, higher trap speed.

J.

there are many variables as stated before, but assuming that both cars are setup correctly and the guy driving the 33gtr isnt a dudddd, theres no way the gt-t will make up for lost traction

id like to see fat racing slicks actually fit inside gt-t gaurds, they are pretty small

Who is sillier, person spending $150k on a 34 Gt-t and failing or a person keyboard bashing him for doing it who may be proven wrong?

How is spending $150k on any car any different, if the owner is happy with it?

Ohh touch a nerve did I?

No, no.

I've been doing this internet thing for about 15 years and am yet to understand why people involve themselves in a discussion to which they have no interest.

Seriously, if you think the discussion is pointless then remove yourself from it. It's not hard.

You wouldn't walk up to someone in real life and stand there talking over them with "I don't care" "You're conversation is pointless" "You're boring" while they try and speak. So why do it here?

If you find it pointless then f**k off. It's quite simple. Those in a discussion that you find pointless clearly don't share your feelings and quite frankly don't give a f**k.

If I were to bet, my money would be on both cars not making it to the finish line.

This really is a pointless argument.

Neither cars are really any good for drag racing, without going for a 4-link / ladderbar rear end and tubbing it, neither car will be able to take a tyre much bigger than 10" wide.

If you wanna have a drag car, buy a torana or a capri, you WILL run 10's with 450hp and slicks.

Here is the rest of what i said, I clearly did have some involvement in the thread, by saying that neither car is really suited for drag racing in standardish form.

As a matter of fact that if I was talking to someone about this in person, I would say that it's a pointless idea.

So...how about you take some of your own advise and STFU, this is what forums are about...If no one replied to questions (even if they arn't what the OP wants to hear) than forums would cease to exist.

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 have no hard data to report, but I have to say, having driven it to work and back all week, mostly on wet roads (and therefore mostly not able to contemplate anything too outrageous anywhere)..... it is real good. I turned the boost controller on, with duty cycle set to 10% (which may not be enough to actually increase the boost), and the start boost set to 15 psi. That should keep the gate unpressurised until at least 15 psi. And rolling at 80 in 5th, which is <2k rpm, going to WOT sees the MAP go +ve even before it crosses 2k and it has >5 psi by the time it hits 90 km/h. That's still <<2.5k rpm, so I think it's actually doing really well. Because of all the not-quite-ideal things that have been in place since the turbo first went on, it felt laggy. It's actually not. The response appears to be as good as you could hope for with a highflow.
    • Or just put in a 1JZ, and sell me the NEO head 😎
    • Oh, it's been done. You just run a wire out there and back. But they have been known to do coolant temp sensors, MAP sensors, etc. They're not silly (at Regency Park) and know what's what with all the different cars.
    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
×
×
  • Create New...