Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What? Stepping up with some new concepts is considered trolling these days? Who made you captain of troll spotting? LOL :spank:

More importantly in regards to the WTA lap times, they run on street tyres, not the slicks that the race cars do. Truely amazing machines. Which means that the 2WD competitors are indeed disadvantaged as grip becomes even more of an issue. There is the HKS GTR Supercar entered which I have no doubt will win but lets not forget we are comparing the R32s which are more simple. Sure the R32 GTR Group A time can be set tomorrow but that just proves that FR layouts do have a chance with race tyres.

I'm just not gonna comment on the X1 until there is a real one. Too many posibilities leading to it not being as fast as it imaginarily claims.

Edited by TyresBro
  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the mods might as well close this thread. it is just trolling now since you use small amounts of info dodgily put together to prove your point, while all the real world examples show that you are wrong.

the simple fact is that if rwd was faster, then the r32 GTR would've been RWD and not AWD. nissan designed the GTR to win the group A championships. if RWD was better they wouldn't have invented the ATESSA system.

Ignore the tards man. Anyone who is ignorant enough to call the end of a thread is a retard, since the forum is designed for open discussion. I'm not into lots of things on this forum, I don't run around crying death of a thread like a child. They just have nothing better to do.

Depending on how much power you're putting down, factoring in grip etc, then yes there is a good chance that in favouring conditions a GTS-T could beat a GTR. The first guy who opposed you had my head shaking from the moment I started reading his reply.

There's nothing wrong with doing a project car to see what you can make of it, eitherway it would be a fun ride! :)

And you never know, it can probably turn out to be a beastly machine, the same way the RB26/30 is now. I'm sure many uneducated fools cried for the death of the thread where the engine was conceived, but here we are now.

Godspeed.

i called an end to the thread because everytime someone posts factual information he ignores 99% of it and comes back with crap, like comparing an AWD car from 1 racing category to a RWD from a different racing category with totally different regulations. then he just keeps going back to that comparison. if this thread was being discussed intelligently then i wouldn't mind, however since it is just a few of us posting factual information and the OP posting his one comparison over and over, there is no point continuing.

I forgot where I read it but the R32 GTR was supposed to come out as RWD but they added AWD and the specific engine to enter into Group A. Maybe you guys already know, who knows. I'll post the article when I find it.

I may be going around in loops sometimes but that's because you too are not listening to anything I'm saying as well. Accusing me of crap when opposing viewers (not gonna say who for the sake of humour) posts some crap about a fake car in a game out of nowhere and posting fake information too. Lets not turn this into a bitch fest please. I provided examples, reasoning, and videos with some of my posts which is fair to prove the point.

I compare to these cars like Commodore VT etc because I don't see how the GTS-T cannot match or beat their lap times given roughly the same modifications and power therefore linking the achievements of those cars with that of the GTS-T. It's only logical. You keep comparing bread to apples or whatever you want to call it by comparing the R32 GTR to Evos and Lamborghinis which to tell you the truth run on very different AWD concepts and layouts. Yes I compared the GTS-T with an RX-7 one time (bread and oranges), but that was to show that even a car that weighs roughly the same as a a GTS-T driving 2 wheels and has a layout of FR (although weight distribution and different engine) seemed to only have the same problem with traction as the GTRs in WTA. Mind you 2WDs don't have the variation in technology and drive differences that AWD does. At the end of the day it's still 2 wheels spinning which are governed by an LSD.

You guys then argued we will never achieve the level these tuning shops and teams will with their techonolgy and money. So I pointed out that none of the lap record holders in both tracks of Eastern Creek Raceway and Winton Raceway were AWD, even some actual examples of a GTS-T or equivalent beating a R32 GTR or equivalent in our SAU VIC lap record holders section. Then it loops back to the fact that they are limited in terms of rules and that the top record holders in WTA is an AWD Evo, so see top paragraph (still keep in mind that we are comparing R32s) for the answer again. Race tyres are a different story again.

As for the fact that there are street driven GTRs that are faster than Group A R32 GTRs, it just proves my point in the last line of this post.

Lets not forget what I myself admitted in the first few pages: A well advanced AWD system will beat RWD anytime.

Edited by TyresBro

I forgot where I read it but the R32 GTR was supposed to come out as RWD but they added AWD and the specific engine to enter into Group A. Maybe you guys already know, who knows. I'll post the article when I find it.

They "added" four wheel drive because the Group A regulations dictated a tyre width that badly compromised traction even on a 2 litre turbo motor - witness the Sierras & their struggles with rear tyres. When I say added I mean it was integral to the R32 GTR concept from the start. Which is to say it wasnt added at all. The motor was orginally to be a 2.4 litre but calcucations showed that the car would weigh enough to let it fall into the next engine capacity group upwards. So it went to 2.6 litres.

I may be going around in loops sometimes but that's because you too are not listening to anything I'm saying as well. Accusing me of crap when opposing viewers (not gonna say who for the sake of humour) posts some crap about a fake car in a game out of nowhere and posting fake information too. Lets not turn this into a bitch fest please. I provided examples, reasoning, and videos with some of my posts which is fair to prove the point.

I compare to these cars like Commodore VT etc because I don't see how the GTS-T cannot match or beat their lap times given roughly the same modifications and power therefore linking the achievements of those cars with that of the GTS-T. It's only logical. You keep comparing bread to apples or whatever you want to call it by comparing the R32 GTR to Evos and Lamborghinis which to tell you the truth run on very different AWD concepts and layouts. Yes I compared the GTS-T with an RX-7 one time (bread and oranges), but that was to show that even a car that weighs roughly the same as a a GTS-T driving 2 wheels and has a layout of FR (although weight distribution and different engine) seemed to only have the same problem with traction as the GTRs in WTA. Mind you 2WDs don't have the variation in technology and drive differences that AWD does. At the end of the day it's still 2 wheels spinning which are governed by an LSD.

You guys then argued we will never achieve the level these tuning shops and teams will with their techonolgy and money. So I pointed out that none of the lap record holders in both tracks of Eastern Creek Raceway and Winton Raceway were AWD, even some actual examples of a GTS-T or equivalent beating a R32 GTR or equivalent in our SAU VIC lap record holders section. Then it loops back to the fact that they are limited in terms of rules and that the top record holders in WTA is an AWD Evo, so see top paragraph (still keep in mind that we are comparing R32s) for the answer again. Race tyres are a different story again.

As for the fact that there are street driven GTRs that are faster than Group A R32 GTRs, it just proves my point in the last line of this post.

Lets not forget what I myself admitted in the first few pages: A well advanced AWD system will beat RWD anytime.

Why are you even trying to compare a VT to a R32 GTST. What about them is in anyway similar? Lets see:

Motor V8 versus turbo 6

Suspension. McPherson struts & semi trailing arm IRS versus wishbones.

Two doors versus four.

One is a family car the other is a pretend sports car.

If you want a quick front engined, rear wheel drive track car just go and buy an RX7. Everyone else does.

As for the Group A GTR no one is going to put such a historic and valuable car at risk by attempting to set a lap time just to impress an internet troll somewhere.

They "added" four wheel drive because the Group A regulations dictated a tyre width that badly compromised traction even on a 2 litre turbo motor - witness the Sierras & their struggles with rear tyres. When I say added I mean it was integral to the R32 GTR concept from the start. Which is to say it wasnt added at all. The motor was orginally to be a 2.4 litre but calcucations showed that the car would weigh enough to let it fall into the next engine capacity group upwards. So it went to 2.6 litres.

Why are you even trying to compare a VT to a R32 GTST. What about them is in anyway similar? Lets see:

Motor V8 versus turbo 6

Suspension. McPherson struts & semi trailing arm IRS versus wishbones.

Two doors versus four.

One is a family car the other is a pretend sports car.

If you want a quick front engined, rear wheel drive track car just go and buy an RX7. Everyone else does.

As for the Group A GTR no one is going to put such a historic and valuable car at risk by attempting to set a lap time just to impress an internet troll somewhere.

That's my point mate. That the suspension on the GTS-T is superior to the olden day trailing arms and struts. The engine I can't really comment. Really comes down to the characteristics and weight of it. Shorter wheelbaase. The Skyline chassis is lighter. So there is no reason for the GTS-T to not be able to beat or at least match the times of the Commo. I am comparing because they also ran in Group A racing with the R32 GTRs with the same rules that have not changed, much anyways, and managed to score a better time.

RBNT you might as well stop looking at this thread or even posting in it. Your comments are more troll than any of mine. Just cause you own a GTR doesn't mean jack anymore.

Edited by TyresBro

That's my point mate. That the suspension on the GTS-T is superior to the olden day trailing arms and struts. The engine I can't really comment. Really comes down to the characteristics and weight of it. Shorter wheelbaase. The Skyline chassis is lighter. So there is no reason for the GTS-T to not be able to beat or at least match the times of the Commo. I am comparing because they also ran in Group A racing with the R32 GTRs with the same rules that have not changed, much anyways, and managed to score a better time.

RBNT you might as well stop looking at this thread or even posting in it. Your comments are more troll than any of mine. Just cause you own a GTR doesn't mean jack anymore.

No dickhead, if you read one of my initial posts you might understand.

Real world experience from owning and driving both vehicles on the track. Not a fucking graph that mspaint helped me with.

That's my point mate. That the suspension on the GTS-T is superior to the olden day trailing arms and struts. The engine I can't really comment. Really comes down to the characteristics and weight of it. Shorter wheelbaase. The Skyline chassis is lighter. So there is no reason for the GTS-T to not be able to beat or at least match the times of the Commo. I am comparing because they also ran in Group A racing with the R32 GTRs with the same rules that have not changed, much anyways, and managed to score a better time.

RBNT you might as well stop looking at this thread or even posting in it. Your comments are more troll than any of mine. Just cause you own a GTR doesn't mean jack anymore.

Sorry but this thread is long gone.

Just to tidy up for others who may for their own perverted reasons be amused by the troll action on here.

You say the GTST suspension is superior. How? How does the roll camber compensation play such an important part after you have normalised it for track width and roll couple? Just interested is all. Would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The GTST never ran in Gooup A.

The various front engined rear wheel drives that Nissan campaigned lost out every time at Bathurst to the Commodores.

Group A cars & regulations changed massively from 85 (earlier overseas) to 92. At the end they werent Group A rules anyway they were modified locally to even the field. Technically the GTR never ran under pure Group A rules in Australia.

Your only correct point is to say the GTST is lighter than a Commodore. Which it bloody well ought to be given how much smaller it is.

Anyway just because you cant afford a GTR dont bother talking up a GTST as a contender.

Random movie quote:

I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody.

  • 2 weeks later...

thread was too long too read so i came in here and decided to post this

There is a reason top tuning companies like Mines, HKS, Top secret only modify GTR's

These companies know more than you.

Err is that reason "because they don't"

There is a reason all the JGTC and GT class Skylines are all RWD, I'm sure it's from the fact that from long term modification, the AWD system is no longer needed. If you look at the statistics, the GTS-T is already 110kg lighter than the GTR (standard eninges), and whatever you can do to the GTR you can do to the GTS-T.

Now before anyone starts flaming, I'm not hating on the GTRs but I dare you guys to prove me wrong on this.

r32_bathurst24.jpg

Next...

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

    • From there, it is really just test and assemble. Plug the adapter cables from the unit into the back of the screen, then the other side to the car harness. Don't forget all the other plugs too! Run the cables behind the unit and screw it back into place (4 screws) and you should now have 3 cables to run from the top screen to the android unit. I ran them along the DS of the other AV units in the gap between their backets and the console, and used some corrugated tubing on the sharp edges of the bracket so the wires were safe. Plug the centre console and lower screen in temporarily and turn the car to ACC, the AV should fire up as normal. Hold the back button for 3 sec and Android should appear on the top screen. You need to set the input to Aux for audio (more on that later). I put the unit under the AC duct in the centre console, with the wifi antenna on top of the AC duct near the shifter, the bluetooth antenna on the AC duct under the centre console The GPS unit on top of the DS to AC duct; they all seem to work OK there are are out of the way. Neat cable routing is a pain. For the drive recorder I mounted it near the rear view mirror and run the cable in the headlining, across the a pillar and then down the inside of the a pillar seal to the DS lower dash. From there it goes across and to one USB input for the unit. The second USB input is attached to the ECUtec OBD dongle and the 3rd goes to the USB bulkhead connected I added in the centre console. This is how the centre console looks "tidied" up Note I didn't install the provided speaker, didn't use the 2.5mm IPod in line or the piggyback loom for the Ipod or change any DIP switches; they seem to only be required if you need to use the Ipod input rather than the AUX input. That's it, install done, I'll follow up with a separate post on how the unit works, but in summary it retains all factory functions and inputs (so I still use my phone to the car for calls), reverse still works like factory etc.
    • Place the new daughterboard in the case and mount it using the 3 small black rivets provided, and reconnect the 3 factory ribbon cables to the new board Then, use the 3 piggyback cables from the daughterboard into the factory board on top (there are stand offs in the case to keep them apart. and remember to reconnect the antenna and rear cover fan wires. 1 screw to hold the motherboard in place. Before closing the case, make a hole in the sticker covering a hole in the case and run the cable for the android unit into the plug there. The video forgot this step, so did I, so will you probably. Then redo the 4 screws on back, 2 each top and bottom, 3 each side and put the 2 brackets back on.....all ready to go and not that tricky really.      
    • Onto the android unit. You need to remove the top screen because there is a daughterboard to put inside the case. Each side vent pops out from clips; start at the bottom and carefully remove upwards (use a trim remover tool to avoid breaking anything). Then the lower screen and controls come out, 4 screws, a couple of clips (including 3 flimsy ones at the top) and 3 plugs on the rear. Then the upper screen, 4 screws and a bunch of plugs and she is out. From there, remove the mounting brackets (2 screws each), 4 screws on the rear, 2 screws top and bottom and 3 screws holding in the small plates on each side. When you remove the back cover (tight fit), watch out for the power cable for the fan, I removed it so I could put the back aside. The mainboard is held in by 1 screw in the middle, 1 aerial at the top and 3 ribbon cables. If you've ever done any laptop stuff the ribbon cables are OK to work with, just pop up the retainer and they slide out. If you are not familiar just grab a 12 year old from an iphone factory, they will know how it works The case should now look like this:
    • Switching the console was tricky. First there were 6 screws to remove, and also the little adapter loom and its screws had to come out. Also don't forget to remove the 2 screws holding the central locking receiver. Then there are 4 clips on either side....these were very tight in this case and needed careful persuading with a long flat screw driver....some force required but not enough to break them...this was probably the fiddliest part of the whole job. In my case I needed both the wiring loom and the central locking receiver module to swap across to the new one. That was it for the console, so "assembly is the reverse of disassembly"
    • But first....while I was there, I also swapped across the centre console box for the other style where the AV inputs don't intrude into the (very limited !) space.  Part# was 96926-4GA0A, 284H3-4GA0B, 284H3-4GA0A. (I've already swapped the top 12v socket for a USB bulkhead in this pic, it fit the hole without modification:) Comparison of the 2: Basically to do the console you need to remove the DS and PS side console trim (they slide up and back, held in by clips only) Then remove the back half of the console top trim with the cupholders, pops up, all clips again but be careful at the front as it is pretty flimsy. Then slide the shifter boot down, remove the spring clip, loose it forever somewhere in the car the pull the shift knob off. Remove the tiny plastic piece on DS near "P" and use something thin and long (most screwdrivers won't fit) to push down the interlock and put the shifter down in D for space. There is one screw at the front, then the shifter surround and ashtray lift up. There are 3 or 4 plugs underneath and it is off. Next is the rear cover of the centre console; you need to open the console lid, pop off the trim covering the lid hinge and undo the 2rd screw from the driver's side (the rest all need to come out later so you can do them all now and remove the lid) Then the rear cover unclips (6 clips), start at the top with a trim tool pulling backwards. Once it is off there are 2 screws facing rearwards to remove (need a short phillips for these) and you are done with the rear of the console. There are 4 plugs at the A/V box to unclip Then there are 2 screws at the front of the console, and 2 clips (pull up and back) and the console will come out.
×
×
  • Create New...