Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The funny thing is whenever u stepped on it, u had to turn it 1/4 turn to the right - i know that the back wheel was out of alignment but this was the same as Domonic Russo's yellow r32 gtr which was making 650awkw where he had to counter steer to keep it straight.

GTR's get massive torque steer in the front with decent power. Check out this video (the wheel alignment is spot on), in the first 3 gears it moves over a car length left and then in 4th I actually drive back onto the "racing line"

Edited by SimonR32

Rightio. The suspension stuff got started today. The sperm whale got weighed and some of the geometry measurements taken today. The porkie pig comes in at 1580 Kg with 1/4 tank of fuel. A little lighter than I thought. The only thing I have taken out is the spare wheel, jack and some of the boot lining. Apart from that it's all standard.

FC872F61-6E4E-47C9-8B47-F98E1F01BA01-662

74F8DCD0-DFD7-4B30-B5E4-D508B9FDFC4A-662

11ty strings everywhere. Tomorrow the shocks will come out so they can measure travel of this that and the other then go away and put together a combo. It'll be basiccally setup for "tarmac rally" which is pretty much what i'm doing with it. Hillclimbs and goat tracks like Wakefield park. Turn around time is between 2 and 4 weeks depending on what Bilstien has in the country.

Well isnt the r34 the heaviest of the gtrs?

Wat lap times u aiming for at wakefield?

Yeah they are, but an extra 20 Kg IIRC.

Times, who knows. I did a 1:10.02 revving to 5000 RPM last year. I solid 1:06 would be nice. It's the muppet behind the wheel that needs to practice :P

the 33 is the heaviest, my 34 came in at 1480 with 1/3 tank, but the tar was removed before I brought it

I remember your blue 34 in the garage.. Very nice.

I could have sworn the 32 was the only Gtr under 1500kgs

that is also what I thought/read

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 feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...