Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

:jk: :jk:

gtr's are for pussies that cant drive

Im a coward and didnt want to be the first to say... :devil:..

... runs and hides from the artillary shells

I will not turn my back on the old GTST, it may cheat a little with a bigger heart, but it is staying RWD...unless someone can convince me that a GTR wil be more fun to drive and more importantly noticeably quicker around a track. :rofl:

And as far as my own experience with GTRs, well ive driven one relatively std R32 GTR, and i have been a passenger in plenty including the only GTR that has really convinced me they are worth the money and agro....

Im up for a drive this weekend for sure... :(

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyway... back to trying to answer Roy's question. Remember, we don't negotiate with hijackers.

Roy;

If I understand your question I think the problem here is that the focus is on one thing only - power. It won't turn into an exercise in futility if you have traction sorted.

At the risk of sounding simplistic, what do you want to do - go fast/sideways, have fun, be competitive in a given class etc? The beauty of being in a class that it partially minimises dilemmas like this because you're restricted.

Irrespective of what your aim is, power and its delivery will only ever be one part of the equation; balancing the gearing and other issues play a huge part in achieving your aim, but what is your aim? If you have huge torque then use taller gears/diff ratio and enjoy the legs it gives you but remember you'll need good brakes to slow the thing down. And then there's the issue of what circuit you are on - to optimise things for all circuits and the road is very difficult, that why guys like Sydnkeykid were invented so they can calculate gears, tyres, susp and power curves and specify set-up. Remember the race teams don't always get it right either.

Get some professional help - er, advice - build it how you want it and be happy.

Roy,

With the RB30 you are going to be able to fry the tyres just as easy BUT there is more throttle control.

Drop Raist60 a PM as he went from the RB25 to RB30 making around 250rwkw.

Even though the RB30 is making the same power Raist60 said the car felt like an animal.

You do need the larger exhaust a/r witht he RB30's otherwise you will get power nosing over at around 5000-5500rpm.

I'm sure you've seen his dyno run?

Considering you are using the car for a lot of track work why not grab yourself a complete RB25DE out of an R32 and drop a set of GTR rods and pistons in to it?

Considering you are using the car for a lot of track work why not grab yourself a complete RB25DE out of an R32 and drop a set of GTR rods and pistons in to it?

That is the other thing to consider also.. having something that is readily and cheaply rebuildable is probably another consideration if you are doing plenty of track work. No matter how much power the engine is putting out, something will always go wrong.

This is a very interesting thread. I am going to be a proud r33 rb25/30 driver soon and I am very interested in the difference in driveability and power and quarter mile racing.

how much better would the rb30 be to the rb25 in a quarter mile race? if at all? and would there be a power difference ? if so how much ?

The only down side of the RB30 is the legality side of things.

Sure you can change engine numbers etc but the block is always going to be taller, unless you do a really good job with the cam belt cover then it is going to be noticable should you be required to go for a VIS.

This is why I recommended the RB25 with the RB26 internals for Roy.

I think it would suit his track work better.

 

And then there's the issue of what circuit you are on - to optimise things for all circuits and the road is very difficult, that why guys like Sydnkeykid were invented so they can calculate gears, tyres, susp and power curves and specify set-up. Remember the race teams don't always get it right either.  

Get some professional help - er, advice - build it how you want it and be happy.

Well my car already has good brakes, good susp setup, not great but good. And calculating all the gearing, rpm, power with compressor maps, suspension pitch, tyre loads etc etc can be done, if my car was running i could even get all that data to assist in CALCULATING what the result will be... but so much of the theory crap goes out the window when you go for a drive in the technically brilliant car for the first time and are disapointed by the results.

Effectively will a 250rwkws RB20 hook up better then a 320-350rwkw car RB30. Or will the more tractable nature of the 3L make it easier to drive.

I understand what Snowman is saying about buy a GTR, but how many ppl can actaully say they have been for a ride in a well setup GTST with brakes, power, cooling, suspension etc...Merli put your hand down. :devil:

So unless Ken wants to sell his car, no more talk of 4wd GTRs, now GTR internals in an RB25DE i like, but concerned that the inlet manifold will be a restriction, and also the valvetrain...hence my other post about converting hydraulic lifters to solids... i was thinking RB25DE to solids not an RB20DET to solids :rofl:

Apologies if my previous post came across a bit harsh, it wasn't intended that way, but I stand by what I said.

I never said you can't have a high peak power reading and have a quick car, just that one does not automatically mean you get the other.

So you would take a fatter torque curve any day, would you spend 6k on a 20rwks average power improvement?
Just to clarify, in my first post I said I'd take a fat torque curve over a high PEAK power reading, not an average one.

Average power and peak power are two different characteristics of an engine. One is taken at a specific part of the rev range, and the other describes how useable a sizeable portion of the rev range is. Would I take a 20kW peak power increase for 6k? Yes, if the rest of the rev range showed a suitable improvement that is not mentioned when talking purely about a peak power reading.

While I have not built "these" cars, I have been involved in the build of a couple of other cars where these theories have been put into practice. An 11 second VLT that made 15rwkW *less* but knocked 3/10 off its time (and felt 10x more grunty on the street) without touching tyres, suspension, gearbox or diff comes to mind, as does a 351 Capri, that went from 9.6 to 9.45 by getting a cam made up that spread the power over a wider section of the powerband, dispite losing some peak power in the process. It's common sense stuff, and both of these cars are much nicer to drive on the street.

On a side note, I might have to look up the Serious Performance 5 DVD, a whole stack of 'lines being tested can't be a bad thing :devil:

WHat about Ben from racepace's R33 GTR Troy? Recon you could ever get a gtst around the track as quick as he gets that around the track?

Thats not playing fair! :rofl: From what i hear nothing can touch that car, but i give me the keys to a GT2/3 Porsche (RWD) and ill try :devil:

Why the hell are we comparing a GTR to a GTST ? its just plain silly because we all know the GTR is better hands down.

'however'

Everyone here loves a Skyline depending on their personality / driving habbits and what they want to do with it. Personally i really love the RWD of my GTST but I aint gona say to anyone that a GTST is a better choice cos I know im wrong.

Its hard to wipe that huge smile off my face after comming out of a corner all crossed up one way then the other then the other. Im sure many people agree. But owning a GTR would just be awesome IMHO.

INASNT: sure but i didn't say anything about the driver, i was suggesting did he think he could get a gtst to run same times as Bens GTR, as in same driver (Roy)...

I belive there is more to the engineering of a GTR compared to Gtst than just 4WD.

both are great cars...

edit: oops looks like i did say 'he gets his car around the track' I didn't mean that, i meant how quick his car gets around the track... sorry

Thats not playing fair! :rofl: From what i hear nothing can touch that car, but i give me the keys to a GT2/3 Porsche (RWD) and ill try :devil:

I don't know about Ben from Racepace but I was out at Eastern Creek yesterday where, incidently I was unbeatable in group C he he, and there were two GT3 Porsches and an R33 GTR with the plates XLR8IN. The GTR wiped the floor with the porsches.

INASNT: sure but i didn't say anything about the driver, i was suggesting did he think he could get a gtst to run same times as Bens GTR, as in same driver (Roy)...

I belive there is more to the engineering of a GTR compared to Gtst than just 4WD.

both are great cars...

Bens GTR is running back of the fieed V8 Supercar times so that is a huge accomplishment. I have never driven at Sandown so dont know what makes a quick car at that circuit.... and im not looking to beat monster cars, GTR or otherwise, just a car that entertains, and at the same time embarasses the occasional big dollar car ;)

Am i right in assuming Sandown more then any other Vic track is a drag strip with a few corners, so comes back to power, where i think my current setup wuold do well considering it weighs in the low 1300s (kg) and had i suppose 220-250rwkws.

I may still find out, shoe string budget RB20 is going back in as i cant have the car off the road for another 5 weeks waiting for new engine to be built.

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

    • Thanks for the reply mate. Well I really hope its a hose then not engine out job
    • But.... the reason I want to run a 60 weight is so at 125C it has the same viscosity as a 40 weight at 100C. That's the whole reason. If the viscosity changes that much to drop oil pressure from 73psi to 36psi then that's another reason I should be running an oil that mimics the 40 weight at 100C. I have datalogs from the dyno with the oil pressure hitting 73psi at full throttle/high RPM. At the dyno the oil temp was around 100-105C. The pump has a 70psi internal relief spring. It will never go/can't go above 70psi. The GM recommendation of 6psi per 1000rpm is well under that... The oil sensor for logging in LS's is at the valley plate at the back of  the block/rear of where the heads are near the firewall. It's also where the knock sensors are which are notable for 'false knock'. I'm hoping I just didn't have enough oil up top causing some chatter instead of rods being sad (big hopium/copium I know) LS's definitely heat up the oil more than RB's do, the stock vettes for example will hit 300F(150C) in a lap or two and happily track for years and years. This is the same oil cooler that I had when I was in RB land, being the Setrab 25 row oil cooler HEL thing. I did think about putting a fan in there to pull air out more, though I don't know if that will actually help in huge load situations with lots of speed. I think when I had the auto cooler. The leak is where the block runs to the oil cooler lines, the OEM/Dash oil pressure sender is connected at that junction and is what broke. I'm actually quite curious to see how much oil in total capacity is actually left in the engine. As it currently stands I'm waiting on that bush to adapt the sender to it. The sump is still full (?) of oil and the lines and accusump have been drained, but the filter and block are off. I suspect there's maybe less than 1/2 the total capacity there should be in there. I have noticed in the past that topping up oil has improved oil pressure, as reported by the dash sensor. This is all extremely sketchy hence wanting to get it sorted out lol.
    • I neglected to respond to this previously. Get it up to 100 psi, and then you'll be OK.
    • I agree with everything else, except (and I'm rethinking this as it wasn't setup how my brain first though) if the sensor is at the end of a hose which is how it has been recommended to isolate it from vibrations, then if that line had a small hole in, I could foresee potentially (not a fluid dynamic specialist) the ability for it to see a lower pressure at the sensor. But thinking through, said sensor was in the actual block, HOWEVER it was also the sensor itself that broke, so oil pressure may not have been fully reaching the sensor still. So I'm still in my same theory.   However, I 100% would be saying COOL THE OIL DOWN if it's at 125c. That would be an epic concern of mine.   Im now thinking as you did Brad that the knock detection is likely due to the bearings giving a bit more noise as pressure dropped away. Kinkstah, drop your oil, and get a sample of it (as you're draining it) and send it off for analysis.
    • I myself AM TOTALLY UNPREPARED TO BELIEVE that the load is higher on the track than on the dyno. If it is not happening on the dyno, I cannot see it happening on the track. The difference you are seeing is because it is hot on the track, and I am pretty sure your tuner is not belting the crap out of it on teh dyno when it starts to get hot. The only way that being hot on the track can lead to real ping, that I can think of, is if you are getting more oil (from mist in the inlet tract, or going up past the oil control rings) reducing the effective octane rating of the fuel and causing ping that way. Yeah, nah. Look at this graph which I will helpfully show you zoomed back in. As an engineer, I look at the difference in viscocity at (in your case, 125°C) and say "they're all the same number". Even though those lines are not completely collapsed down onto each other, the oil grades you are talking about (40, 50 and 60) are teh top three lines (150, 220 and 320) and as far as I am concerned, there is not enough difference between them at that temperature to be meaningful. The viscosity of 60 at 125°C is teh same as 40 at 100°C. You should not operate it under high load at high temperature. That is purely because the only way they can achieve their emissions numbers is with thin-arse oil in it, so they have to tell you to put thin oil in it for the street. They know that no-one can drive the car & engine hard enough on the street to reach the operating regime that demands the actual correct oil that the engine needs on the track. And so they tell you to put that oil in for the track. Find a way to get more air into it, or, more likely, out of it. Or add a water spray for when it's hot. Or something.   As to the leak --- a small leak that cannot cause near catastrophic volume loss in a few seconds cannot cause a low pressure condition in the engine. If the leak is large enough to drop oil pressure, then you will only get one or two shots at it before the sump is drained.
×
×
  • Create New...