Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm lucky enough to own a R34gtr and a R35. They are very different, the 35 does everything so easy-too easy really. The 34 is very modified N1, stroked, gtrs turbo's, cams, Vipec etc. You can really feel its a generation apart but the 34 has a soul the 35 doesn't. One day would sell the 35 can't ever think of selling the 34.

  • Like 1

Nice reply :)

I think a Skyline forum is the wrong place to mention the Singer 911. They just wont get it ;)

Oh no we get it, and u know what Jeromy Clarkson gets it to, he's always loved Ferrari's and Skyrine's and hates Porches with a passion. So that's why I liked him coz he says it how it is, but by all means go and spend 120k on a singer and you''ll b a winner.. :3some:

Edited by discoPumpkin

^ Quite surprised coming from the man himself Jeremy Clarkson who launches a scathing attack upon the vehicle, about the only good thing he did say was being fast around a track. He did however praise the R34 GTR instead... thoughts?

They're very different cars. The R35 is so far ahead of the R34 in terms of build and performance that it's really not an apples to apples comparison. To be honest, in terms of performance, the R35 has made all older Skylines reduntant. The extra low end torque (and there is a lot of it) of the VR38 alone is enought to make the R34 look like a toy. And then you've got the brakes and the DSG gearbox, which only tip the scales in favour of the R35 even more. The R35 is a very fun car to drive and be driven in, and when modded, is UNBELIEVABLY quick in a straight line and around corners. Too quick IMO. Anyone that says the R35 is a boring drive is kidding themselves.

But, the R34 feels a little lighter and more involving thanks to the manual transmissio and the older tech. My 2 cents.

  • Like 1

Yah I agree about the R34G TR in terms of the torque, being the last of the RB26's they should of atleast made it a 2.8 for increased torque. Theres nothing really different from the 32 motor to the 34 motor except ball bearing turbos, so that's a lil disapointing from NIssan to finish the RB26 like that

But I've never been in a R35 GTR so I can't comment on how good they go, all I know is there about 200/250kg heavier so again that's a bit of a let down but i'm sure the power makes up for it. Gotta love the straight6 sound over the V6 sound tho

ps in 2011 Jeremy Clarkson said "Theres no car faster in the world over 300 metres then a GTR"

3 fat chix in the boot and 3 across the roof racks = Launch control... wait wot- did I say launch or lunch



gota say tho i'd prefer ya stagea over a singer 911 any day of the week end..


Don't like V6 sounds? I think mine sounds pretty damn good at 8k.

It is still 6 bangs per revolution, and that's 6 more than you've ever had... :P

Shows clear lack of understanding of four cycle engine.

  • Like 1

Try rolling in a GTR and tell me it was a waste of money. By far the fastest, most responsive weapon I have ever driven. Car is top of the range. Porche is rough and impractical although power is its thing. AMG 6.3 is a driving car with a little punch. I would rather have the best of both of them and still be rolling out in front on track day. You can always bring a piece of $":t car to the party that has had a few little things done to it, but no one really cares. A GTR will always stand out more than your pink 1980 supra.

Ok I owned a new MY11 GTR and it was the quickest car I have driven on track. It was definitely not the most responsive, in fact it's weight made it quite a cumbersome thing on track.

On road it was understeery and boring.

Porsche offers various products but pick the one that suits and you have a car which is hilarious on the road and a few tenths slower on track which I would happily give up for the sound of a Mezger flat 6 any day.

Not familiar with any modern 6.3l Mercedes sorry.

  • Like 1

I'm not saying porche isn't a fantastic make and an aggressive competitor, but for the average joe who wants a sports car and doesn't want and can't afford to spend 400k + the GTR is the next best thing. I too have a my11 and although I can fault a few things like yourself. I'm not complaining with my bang for buck.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...