Jump to content
SAU Community

Nissan Gtr Rumours

PranK

By PranK,
in R35 GTR

 Share

Recommended Posts

PranK Grand Master

PranK

Posted
Posted

There are a lot of rumours going around about the "Next GTR" whether it is the R35 GTR or not.

I thought I'd create a thread to chat about these rumours.

gallery_3_5780_87057.jpg

The latest is from paultan.org.

That site writes


Said powertrain setup features a twin-turbo 3.0 litre petrol V6 mill, itself touted to put down as much as 500 hp, while an electric motor with Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) further augments the package by providing as much as 1,500 hp in total. A five-speed sequential transmission with a Tilton triple-plate carbon clutch and a pneumatic paddle shift layout sends all that grunt to all four wheels.

Not sure about that 1,500hp claim ...

The article goes on to say ...


As a result, it’s not so surprising to see a milder variation of the same powertrain lurking under the bonnet of the next-gen GT-R – which will be front-engined still, as confirmed by Nissan’s Shiro Nakamura. So far, reports are in that the 2017 Nissan GT-R will have a power output hovering about the 700 hp-mark.

700 hp sounds awesome. But, more power and a milder powertrain?

What do you think? Have you read much about the new GTR?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/457036-nissan-gtr-rumours/
Share on other sites
IOWNU Grand Master

IOWNU

Posted
Posted

R36 maybe? Don't know too much yet, but I have a few suggestions or hopes rather.

I think if they could give it more top end power that'd be great. The 0-100 is pretty good, after that it drops off a little.

I also wonder if they could have a better comfort mode, so that the car is less clunky and noisy when you are just cruising stuck in traffic....

GSX-R35 Community Regular

GSX-R35

Posted
Posted

There are a lot of rumours going around about the "Next GTR" whether it is the R35 GTR or not.

I thought I'd create a thread to chat about these rumours.

gallery_3_5780_87057.jpg

The latest is from paultan.org.

That site writes

Not sure about that 1,500hp claim ...

The article goes on to say ...

700 hp sounds awesome. But, more power and a milder powertrain?

What do you think? Have you read much about the new GTR?

That first quote about 1500 combined hp from a 3 liter V6 and KERS is talking about the drivetrain on the Nismo GT-R LM race car, not the R36 so that 1500 number is legit - that's typical peak power output from the type of twin-turbo petrol V6 and Torotrak flywheel KERS the LM is running. That number is peak combined power though and not sustained hp which will be closer to 700 hp from the V6 alone. The article is basically just rehashing the old rumors that have been flying around for a long time now that the next-gen GT-R will be a hybrid with styling cues from the Vision GT concept - you don't exactly have to be prophetic or an insider to draw obvious conclusions like that.

  • Like 1
PranK Grand Master

PranK

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That first quote about 1500 combined hp from a 3 liter V6 and KERS is talking about the drivetrain on the Nismo GT-R LM race car, not the R36 so that 1500 number is legit - that's typical peak power output from the type of twin-turbo petrol V6 and Torotrak flywheel KERS the LM is running. That number is peak combined power though and not sustained hp which will be closer to 700 hp from the V6 alone. The article is basically just rehashing the old rumors that have been flying around for a long time now that the next-gen GT-R will be a hybrid with styling cues from the Vision GT concept - you don't exactly have to be prophetic or an insider to draw obvious conclusions like that.

Thanks for clarifying.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Duncan
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Duncan · Posted

      Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • funkymonkey
      Jacks that fit under GTR lips that can reach the subframe?

      By funkymonkey · Posted

      I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...