Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Does anyone now what sort of difference there would be in lap times between say an R33 GTS25T and R33 GTR, in stock form around tracks like Oran park or Eastern Creek.

I know there would be a huge difference, however I'm just curious.

Not sure whether this was the right section for this thread.

S out.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/53578-lap-times-gtst-vs-gtr/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

HAHAHA - this thread is Gold.

It's a funny thing but it seems that the biggest depending factor on which car is faster is Latitude. The further South you get the faster the GTR's are but as you get North the GTS-T's seem to take over.

I mean down at Phillip Island the GTR's are close to 10s per lap faster. A little further North at Sandown its maybe 5s faster.

But as you get further North to tracks like Oran Park or Eastern Creek suddenly GTS-T's seem to be quicker. It would be great to test this theory at places like Symmonds Plains and Hidden Valley! What do you say we do these tests? Duncan? Roy? LOL

But the reason why this is the case is a mistery :confused:

:P

interesting theory there Snowman! I wonder if we get to the Northern Hemisphere, say the Nurburgring, will the GTSTs go so fast that they exceed the speed of light? :wassup:

The basic problem is that gtr drivers have small balls, thereby reducing the performance of the car...maybe there is more air pressure down south and they just shrink?

The quickest i have heard a basically stock r33 gtr do Eastern Creek is 1.49, it was Andrev the CAS driver and I think Merli was passengering. My basically stock gtst's best is 1.52....so about 3 seconds. Of course the gtr has at least 30-50% more power and Eastern Creek shows that up best.

At smaller tracks like wakefield my car has done a 1.10, and I don't know of any stockish gtrs to compare that too, but a 500hp gtr did a 1.08, so the gap really narrows on tighter tracks.

Around Oran Park south my gtr did 53 on road tyres, the gtst did 51.

Its funny that you say GTR drivers seem to have small balls when the tracks the GTR's are faster at are the ones where speed and commitment are what makes a fast lap time rather than pissy little tracks where you don't get out of 3rd gear.

I would be sure that the weight reduction benifits of small balls would be the reason why GTST's are faster around technical tracks surely?

interesting theory there Snowman!  I wonder if we get to the Northern Hemisphere, say the Nurburgring, will the GTSTs go so fast that they exceed the speed of light? :wassup:

.

I think its more of a Polar thing actually. So closer to the equator is good for GTST's but closer to the Poles is good for GTR's.

So I think the GTR's would own you at Nurburgring.

If both cars are in good condition and absolutley stock and you are comparing same models then id say the GTR may be a bit quicker for a given lap.

But there are so many variables such as tyres, ppl dont consider exhaust to be really a mod. Hell a std turbo / IC GTR can knock out 250rwkws, good luck to getting that sort of power form a GTST without IC and turbo upgrade.

That said if you give a GTST the same power as a GTR then i dont think there is much in it at all. Give me Doughboy's GTST and i think it would walk all over most modded GTRs. Then again give me TrustGTR's car and i think it would sh1t on GT3s:thumbsup:

Im with Duncan, most GTRs i see are slower then my GTST.:P My best with std turbo and road rubber at Eastern Creek was 1:56 and at Eakefield 1:13. That was with Whiteline susp, filter/exhaust/IC and std ECU limiting me to 180km/h down the straight at Eastern Creek...given no speed limiter im sure i would have got into the low 1:55s which is quicker then just about every GTR ive shared the track with:)

Then sticky rubber and i think my exhaust and susp mods would have allowed me to keep up with Duncans std R33:(

Mind you Wakefield trying to keep up with the SSS GTR was an entirely different kettle of fish so it should be with a GMS engine.

What the!?

i dont know the people driving these cars or the tracks but on what planet has a stock gtst ever been faster or even close to a stock GTR in track battles?

If they are both driven properly it should be no competition

What about upgraded gtsts? eg 250rwkw gtst vs 250rwkw gtr?

I'd think the Gtst would have the advantage on tigher/slower tracks since its lighter, easier on the tyres, and easier to throw into tight corners... but on the faster/not as tight tracks i'd think the GTR would be better...

Driver has a lot to do with it, roll out a 33GTR and 33GTST in factory form, no mods at all, no exaust, etc... same (good) driver, and i couldn't see how a gtst could beat a GTR... once you start throwing a little money into suspension and light power mods its starts to even out....

my opinion

At the end of the day they are both a hell of a lot of fun at the track:thumbsup:

...and taking drivers out of the equation...i have a vid with Richard Burns driving around a pommie track in an R33GTR vs Ferrari 355, 550, NSX, 911, 3000GT, Lotus Elise (Echo:)) M3 plus a few hot hatches and the UK Spec R33 GTR had the quickest lap time! :P

I cant see a std R33 keeping pace with that calibre of car:(

In seriousness - down here in Vic all the fast cars are GTR's and in NSW they are GTST's. But is seems in Vic all the serious track guys drive GTR's and in NSW the serious guys drive GTST's.

Next weekend down here will be interesting as we have a big track day with I think about 15 skylines attending. About half GTR's and half GTST's. We all know the fastest car will be Ben (GTR) but other than that it will be interesting to see how many GTST's will beat any of the GTR's.

Some might beat Emre - but he belongs in NSW! (LOL - just kidding mate!)

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

    • Get an inspection camera up there. 
    • Yeah, but look at the margin in viscosity between the 40 and the 60 at 125°C. It is not very large. It is the difference between 7 and 11 cP. Compare that to the viscosity at only 90°C. The viscosity axis is logarithmic. The numbers at 90 are ~15 and ~35. That is about half for the 40 wt oil and <half for the 60. You give up viscosity EXPONENTIALLY as temperature rises. Literally. That is why I declare thicker oil to be a bandaid, and a brittle one at that. Keep the oil temperature under about 110°C and you should be better off.   Having said all of that, which remains true as a general principle, if you have indeed lost enough oil from the sump that the pump was seeing slightly aerated oil, then all bets are off. That would of course cause oil pressure to collapse. And 35 psi is a collapse given what you were doing to the engine. Especially if the oil was that hot and viscosity had also collapsed. And I would put money on rod or main bearings being the source of the any noise that registered as knock. Hydraulic lifters should be able to cope with the hotter oil and lower pressure enough to prvent too much high frequency noise, although I am willing to admit it could be the source.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...