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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...