Jump to content
SAU Community

The Next GT-R (November '04 update)


Recommended Posts

Yet another page in the next GT-R development unfolds...

a) Nissan are well aware of the popularity of the GT-R outside of Japan, and are looking to make the next GT-R well and truly stand out more than previous incarnations. The "World Market GT-R" as it were... just by translating the article from Holiday Auto, you can feel that the next GT-R has truly broken away from the "old" R-series GT-Rs... (I can hear the crying and monitor bashing from here!)

B) Porsche 911 Turbo is going down... in fact, it seems Nissan are already claiming victory (???)... such is their confidence after the Nurburgring tests. Aparently, the first test failed because some driveline hardware was faulty, but the subsequent 2 tests were successful enough for Nissan to make final descisions on the driveline: 3.2L V6 Twin electric-assisted Turbo, FR-L platform (Primary Front engine/Rear wheel drive transaxel, motor-assisted front wheel drive or "e-4WD") with Getrag 7-speed sequential gearbox.

After much deliberation about 3.0, 3.5 and even 4.1L capacities for the VQ engine, they've decided on 3.2. The thing to bear in mind here is the Porsche 911 Turbo... it seems Nissan may want to defeat Porsche with less capacity...

Expected final power output: 480ps @ 7,200rpm, 58.0kg/m @ 5,200rpm.

c) Other specs of note are the "semi-wet sump" (as opposed to the dry sump originally quoted) and the aluminium spaceframe, steel cabin and bulk usage of carbon throughout.

And now... let the cursing and coffee spitting-out begin...

3gtrpic1.jpg

This... my fellow SAU brethren... is one of the submissions from a joint Nissan Japan/Europe/US design team that is going into the draw for an "in-house" GT-R design competition... :spcow:

3gtrpic2.jpg

Just a little bit cloooooserrrrrrrr... :spcow: :spcow:

Just when you thought they couldn't F$%# up the GT-R design anymore... I give you:

THE REAR END!!! :)

3gtrpic3.jpg

:spcow: :spcow: :spcow:

3gtr_specs.jpg

Of note here is the 255/40/20 front, 285/35/20 rear tyre size on 20" wheels.

Thats about it for now... theres still quite alot of the article that I haven't translated yet, but it all centers around the transaxel and Getrag gearbox which even Holiday Auto themselves aren't so sure about (the Getrag box in particular).

Stay tune...

/Rezz

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/55609-the-next-gt-r-november-04-update/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks for the info Rezz

now as for that joint design team, they should be all fired asap. Granted that the front end is an improvement over the v35 and v36 design IMO, butt (excuse the pun), what the hell is that rear end??? I'll tell you exactly what it is, it is a big fat ugly arse. I could live with the front end as its not too bad but the back YUK!!

what is good is the pumping out of the rear panels above the 20inch rims of big fat tyres

However, in short summary of the look of the car, its not GTR material. It needs to be improved. What is the reaction over there in japan, are people happy or is there intense rioting from GTR fans :hellpisd:

The technological aspect is a winner with me, and have never doubted Nissan to fail in that regard. Its just the bloody styling of Nissan these bloody (coung Ghosn cough) days that is all wrong. Fair enough to try and bring luxury type styling to pulsars and maximas but for pete's sake, this is the GTR!!!!

specs look awesome ... but design?? **** me man ... that just sucks ... why'd u want to make a GTR look like an audi for?? stick with the classic GTR r32-34 shape .. these europeans are idiots ... they must have some fetish for fat women ... not that theres anything wrong with it ... just dont' put it on the cars :)

I don't know ........ I am starting to dig the way it is turning out, at least they have gone back to the round tail lights.

Don't get me wrong there is heaps to do to improve on the appearance, but at least now they seem to be heading in the right direction......... sort of :)

Thanks for the update Rezz.

GEEZ, mixed emotions about this one! I love the specs on the car, but the design?.....W - T - F?? :throwup: Nissan have either made 5yr olds make the design, or they're smoking something. Theres no rear spoiler either? Im guessing theres alot of downforce happening with the aerodynamics under the car?

But that seriously, is UGLY. It has shattered me!

WAKE UP NISSAN!!!!! (body design wise) ;)

Steve.

believe no one but us...*shakes hands with Rezz*...didn't we say :D
Yeah, and now your as good as gone (back to AU) aren't ya? What am I gonna do now? I need some gaijin backup here in Japan so it doesn't look like we're making all this up... :D

There is no way that body design will make it to market. I'm more interested in this e-4wd crap. And mismatched rim widths and tyre sizes on a 4WD vehicle? This is all pointing to strangeness. How much torque is really going to be coming from the front wheels in an e-4wd car with 480ps at the rears????

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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...