Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

r32_bathurst24.jpg

Next...

that isn't a JGTC or GT class race car now is it? that is a group A race car. as was said earlier, all the JGTC and GT class GTR's are RWD, but that is because the rules specify that they must be RWD, and also a NA v8 from memory.

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

r32_bathurst24.jpg

Next...

I hate quoting pictures but do you have a high resolution version of this pic (eg background res).

Thanks

Also I know you guys wanted this thread to die but I picked up on a comment about the closer to 50:50 split they ran the faster their lap times. Is this a predominantly RWD that progresses to 50:50 upon loss of traction, or was it permanently 50:50? Cheers.

Also I know you guys wanted this thread to die but I picked up on a comment about the closer to 50:50 split they ran the faster their lap times. Is this a predominantly RWD that progresses to 50:50 upon loss of traction, or was it permanently 50:50? Cheers.

I think that was me. I didnt quite say 50:50 I said more front bias.

The way it works is roughly as follows.

The stock Attessa cuts front bias when it senses a reasonable road speed & reasonable lateral gee input. This is to "make it feel like a rear wheel drive car". Which is fine if that is what you want. By reducing the influence of the lateral gee input you end up with more front torque. Which if you have a reasonable chassis balance & some horsepowers gives you a quicker lap time.

It isnt a loss of traction thing to be pedantic. Also I have no idea how the fixed torque bias controllers work. Never used one.

For whomever wanted to PM me whatever I emptied the rubbish out of my inbox.

Anyway put the damn thread in a box & bury it. Please. Before RBNT has an aneurysm

that isn't a JGTC or GT class race car now is it? that is a group A race car. as was said earlier, all the JGTC and GT class GTR's are RWD, but that is because the rules specify that they must be RWD, and also a NA v8 from memory.

No it is not. Thankyou for stating the obvious.

I believed this thread was comparing an r32 gts-t to an r32 gt-r.... When someone makes a gts-t as capable as that car then I will be both surprised and accept the original premis of this thread.

I think that was me. I didnt quite say 50:50 I said more front bias.

The way it works is roughly as follows.

The stock Attessa cuts front bias when it senses a reasonable road speed & reasonable lateral gee input. This is to "make it feel like a rear wheel drive car". Which is fine if that is what you want. By reducing the influence of the lateral gee input you end up with more front torque. Which if you have a reasonable chassis balance & some horsepowers gives you a quicker lap time.

It isnt a loss of traction thing to be pedantic. Also I have no idea how the fixed torque bias controllers work. Never used one.

For whomever wanted to PM me whatever I emptied the rubbish out of my inbox.

Anyway put the damn thread in a box & bury it. Please. Before RBNT has an aneurysm

It still won't let me, says you can't receive any new PM's. >_<

No it is not. Thankyou for stating the obvious.

I believed this thread was comparing an r32 gts-t to an r32 gt-r.... When someone makes a gts-t as capable as that car then I will be both surprised and accept the original premis of this thread.

This is a fairly good way to summarize this thread. I am currently starting a very simple build up of a gts-t because I find them a more entertaining drive than the gt-r, I don't hold any delusions of it being faster at this stage. I welcome someone to make the fastest possible rwd R32. That said, Russel from Sau Vic has a nasty habit of beating all the GT-Rs in his gts-t at quite a number of events ;).

I had a go at you? When? Sorry but I do not remember. sad.gif

Sorry, I thought whey you said "I hate quoting pictures" that you were having a go at my thread reply with a picture only but you must have meant you don't like including a pic in your reply.

Anyway, here are some pics I have that are reasonable resolution...

post-26935-0-88637800-1308460154_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-67862800-1308460266_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-02316500-1308460416_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-22871800-1308460577_thumb.jpg

post-26935-0-53347200-1308460843_thumb.jpg

Sorry, I thought whey you said "I hate quoting pictures" that you were having a go at my thread reply with a picture only but you must have meant you don't like including a pic in your reply.

Yeah thats what I meant lol, sorry for the confusion, thanks heaps for the pics! :)

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

    • Ha, well, it's been.... a bit of a journey. Things have taken much longer than I'd hoped. I'll probably put up a thread at some stage. Hopefully soon. The car's not done any kms since my update in June though, put it that way.
    • Here's the chart for fuel pressure vs. current draw, assuming your base fuel pressure is 3 bar and you run like 0.5bar boost on WOT, you should only momentarily hit 9amps here and there. (Ignore my prev post, I cannot read a chart these days it seems)
    • Those comp test results are not hideous. Whether they are accurate or not (ie, when that comp tester says 140 psi, is the real pressure120, 140 or 160?) is unknown to us. The state of the battery used to crank it over is unknown, etc etc. Many people around here would say that the absolute values and the spread are perfectly fine to just add boost and keep going. I personally would be happier with a narrower spread than that, but even the diff between 125 and 145 is not terrible. That one cylinder at 125 though, has probably copped some damage relative to the others. You should inspect the valves seeing as you've got it open. Do you know how to measure installed ring gaps? That, and an inspection of the rings themselves, is how you will determine whether they need to be replaced. If you're not good to do these things, take the block and the pistons and rings to a shop that is, and ask them for the go/no-go on them. Do the bores need a hone at all? If so, you might well be justified in getting some different pistons in order to get away from the ring supply problem. Whether you're happy to spend a lot more money right now, on more gear, rather than less money, but an amount that looks stupid given that you will only get a handful of rings in exchange for that money, is for you to decide.
    • also possibly backed up to my filler and shat down it! 🤣
    • Ok so i would love some advice here please, i purchased an R33 a few months back and its had a few mods done to the engine, its an RB25det running a Master ECU, 1200cc injectors, bigger turbo, oil cooler, oil filter relocation kit, Spool H-beam rods, acl/ross pistons. When i removed the motor from the vehicle (as its getting a respray) i thought i would compression test it and these are the following results. Cylinder 1-145psi, Cylinder 2-143psi, Cylinder 3-125psi, Cylinder 4-145psi, Cylinder 5-140psi, Cylinder 6-135psi this test was done with the motor on the ground and powering up the starter motor. I dropped the sump and found broken oil squirters on cylinder 3,5 and 6. I was told my rings are probably worn so i stripped the motor completely to get a new set of rings for it. The trouble is no one has these rings anywhere and they have to be custom made by Ross over in the states and will cost about $600+$200 delivery. My question is how can i tell if my rings are at fault and if they are still ok and is this price ok for a set of rings?
×
×
  • Create New...