Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

AWD more likely to stick to the road............4 points of traction means more resistance....therefore grip

and less power being transferd to more wheels also eases traction problems

GTR was designed to win races, it did that to an almost unprecedented ability.............

think bathurst.............aussie RWD cars spinning about in the wet while the GTR was lapping them.........

i hope that helped......................you better not be one of those 13 yearolds who think GTR's are crap cause they're not 'drift spec'

All GTR's have ATTESA E-TS, 4 wheel drive system consisting of a variable electronic torque-split transfer mechanism. This directs torque to the front drivetrain through a multiplate clutch.

The clamping force on the clutch can varie between 0-50% dependant on wheelspin sensors that measure slip in the rear wheels. GTR is basically rwd intil you accelerate hard and the ecu signals the front wheels kick in.

:)

GTR's are NOT AWD!!!

I know what your saying, but I think "AWD" has come to signify cars like the GT-R (and numerous others: Honda CR-V for instance) that have a bias to either front or back, and engage the other set of wheels depending on conditions. This is distinct from "4WD" which implies some sort of constant drive delivered to all wheels (nobody mention the 1% going to the R33 GT-R's front :) ).

LW.

In the "GT-R Memorial" book (Japanese publication chronicling the life of the GT-R) is says the GT-R is *4WD*. I understand what you guys say about AWD, but that term isn't used in conjuction with GT-Rs in Japan.

It's pretty simple, RWD has some disadvantages on track, the biggest being power on oversteer out of corners. 4WD was used in the GT-R simply to be able to get the power on ealier out of corners therefore reducing track times... and as what has already been stated, quicker lap times is what the GT-R is all about (without going to a MR platform for better weight distribution).

In the "GT-R Memorial" book (Japanese publication chronicling the life of the GT-R) is says the GT-R is *4WD*. I understand what you guys say about AWD, but that term isn't used in conjuction with GT-Rs in Japan.

The distinction has only really been made by the Australian motoring press (and marketers) in the last two or so years as Australia has seen an explosion in the 'soft-roader' market.

These terms are obviously location specific and rather fluid :)

LW.

The distinction has only really been made by the Australian motoring press (and marketers) in the last two or so years as Australia has seen an explosion in the 'soft-roader' market.

These terms are obviously location specific and rather fluid :)

LW.

Right, but the maker could've used any term to describe the drivetrain for their car, but decided on 4WD... why was that?
Right, but the maker could've used any term to describe the drivetrain for their car, but decided on 4WD... why was that?

Rezz, I am not disputing what you are saying, in fact I think the AWD/4WD distinction is pretty stupid because it means different things to different people. But rather than writing 'full time 4WD' or 'variable 4WD', the writers of motoring mags/papers now just use the 4WD and AWD respectively. Thus they have entered the Australian lexicon with particular meanings.

I imagine the distinction was originally made so that companies in Australia couldn't be sued for suggesting that their 'soft-roader' cars had real off-road ability (which, arguably, the 4WD tag might imply). By creating the new 'AWD' class, they have effectively tried to meld the idea of the safety of 4WD traction without the ability to go off-road (and perhaps also, the negative conetations attached to big offroaders re fuel, etc).

LW.

the writers of motoring mags/papers now just use the 4WD and AWD respectively. Thus they have entered the Australian lexicon with particular meanings.
Sorry mate, I don't live in Australia... and it's starting to show :)
Sorry mate, I don't live in Australia... and it's starting to show :)

No need to apologise -- as I said, its a stupid marketing driven distinction and is highly confusing (in fact, if I was a cynical bastard -- which I am -- I might suggest the confusion is intentional). Besides which, we all know Japan is the place to be ;)

LW.

"Off road" 4wd like Landcruisers etc don't have

That's funny, Toyota thinks it does:

Constant 4WD

When driving over dramatically different surfaces, confidence is inspired by the constant four-wheel drive. Any sudden emergencies, such as driving through a slippery surface, are more easily controlled with LandCruiser 100's constant 4WD.

Traction control is standard on all Sahara models to provide added grip off-road

think bathurst.............aussie RWD cars spinning about in the wet while the GTR was lapping them.........

Hi... ummm maybe you should watch Bathurst 1992...

Any difference between AWD and 4WD are purely a marketing terms.

The lower spec models (GTS-T, GT-T) are all RWD.  

Why did Nissan decide to make the GTR an AWD car?

because when they made a rwd prototype it was too fast. they added the wieght of 4wd to slow it down :)

No matter fulltime or part time...GT-Rs are still considered 4WD. In racing they are only allowed in 4WD class or over 2000cc turbo class with other cars or only GT-R class.

4WD and AWD is pretty much interchangable these days as mentioned lost due to marketting. In some Evo brochures from MMC sometimes it reads AWD but on the rear window of the car is says 4WD. Does it really matter these days!

"Off road" 4wd like Landcruisers etc don't have

toyota landcruisers have both part time 4wd and constant 4wd from late 90 on ( 80 series) the gxl and more upmarket saharas and gxvs have contant 4wd , the bottom of the range ( barn doors at the rear and vinyl seats , yuk) are still part time 4wd you have to select by moving a lever next to the normal gear lever .

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 was using the wiring diagram I have So 12.74V is coming into the rear Fuel Pump relay as I measured.  When I turn the key to ON im getting 0.6V to the Fuel Pump plug; which i assume is backfeed voltage and doesnt include the 12V from ignition power.  The rear relay is working and being triggered.  From the diagram I clearly see the rear relay 80 = Rear Relay going into the Body/H loom (R-27) 27 = Fuel Pump plug going into the Body/H loom (T-20) 40 = Short Connector (R-27) I'm reading 12.74V on the blue/black wire which is the power for the Fuel Pump   From this diagram I can see the Ignition relay goes into the front and up to the ignition  2 = Fuel Pump Relay <1M> (R-27) 37 = ING Relay <1M> I started from the pump using this reference Which the way I read it (referencing Nissan wiring color codes) is: Pin Wire Color Function 1 B/P (Black/Pink) Ground 2 L/W (Blue/White)        ECU Trigger 3 SB (Sky Blue) Fuel Pump 5 L/B (Blue/Black) 12V Constant Tested SB to SB on Fuel Pump for continuity - confirmed Tested negative on Fuel Pump to 12V battery and L/B - confirmed 12V Pulled the relay putting 12V between Pin 1 & 2 and testing continuity on Pin 3 & 4 - confirmed relay   So that has me looking at this part of the circuit to understand whats happening here...and im still confused. From best I can tell; the disconnect is back to my previous diagram; between Ignition Relay and Fuel Pump Relay...which yet again; afaik is where the immobiliser should.    Thats what I was trying to explain to GTSboy; im not trying to fix it myself; yet I seem to have to get a Masters in Electrical Engineering (while im busy doing my actual job of DevOps & Cloud Engineering) somehow.  I just wanted more expert opinions; or more so that what I tested is correct and proves it to something around that area; to go back to the alarm tech (for a 3rd time) that he needs to fix it. He keeps telling me its not the alarm. He lives on the complete other side of the city so i understand not wanting to make a trip but as I said before if its the alarm it should be up to him to fix it. But he's adament its not; even though I pointed out the FP was immobilised through the original alarm. To my mind; it seems that the ECU is sending the signal; but the ignition is not getting 12V down the line.       
    • Maybe also really stiffly sprung track cars. Get the inside wheel up in a corner and all the fun stops. Also me sometimes (rarely) when I have to stand on the brake to convince the diff to drive the wheel that is still on the ground when I'm trying to diagonally get over severe driveway entrance, etc.
    • I feel like I'm missing something. You had an authorised installer come out and install a new alarm. Post install the car doesn't start, and you aren't getting the installer back to fix what they did wrong?
    • So either way it is gearbox out and look what is wrong?  I know about the input shaft bearing. Even before swap/new clutch the it sounded exactly like this: So is that inout shaft bearing or the other was installed backwards?  And can some please tell me the part number for that input shaft bearing? The gearbox is small box from R34 N/A and number is FS5W71C. Thank you  
    • I am yet to see anyone ever regret a quaife or helical. ...other than drifting/skidpan duties. I kind of want to upgrade my factory helical with a Quaife (but really it's not ultimately that different, and is a MASSIVE UNDERTAKING), that's how good the hype is about them, that I want to try them 'just to see'  
×
×
  • Create New...