Jump to content
SAU Community

  

281 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

You'd hope so after all these years.  And they don't make more power than a GTT.  Get your facts straight.

It's not as though the VQ is huge leap forward.  I'd like to see how much power a RB35DE made.

Ummm I do have my facts straight, Skyline r34 GTT stock 206KW x 1.34 = 276HP

G35 coupe the first models did 280HP the new ones do 295HP

You need to chill out a bit, I am not having a go at you just stating facts, as you will notice in one of my posts above I said " But each to their own I guess, peoples tastes are different".

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ummm I do have my facts straight, Skyline r34 GTT stock 206KW x 1.34 = 276HP

G35 coupe the first models did 280HP the new ones do 295HP

 

You need to chill out a bit, I am not having a go at you just stating facts, as you will notice in one of my posts above I said "  But each to their own I guess, peoples tastes are different".

I am quite chilled out. You seem to be dazzled by the "extra" 4 hp. But 4hp is hardly *more*. LOL. I'm really not impressed by an engine with more displacement making the same power as a smaller, turbo engine.

It's probably sadder that the R34 GTR is not significantly more powerful than the R32 GTR. And now the fastest new skyline is the equivalent of a GTS.

And you're comparing an RB20DE to a VQ35DE????

I am quite chilled out. You seem to be dazzled by the "extra" 4 hp. But 4hp is hardly *more*. LOL. I'm really not impressed by an engine with more displacement making the same power as a smaller, turbo engine.

It's probably sadder that the R34 GTR is not significantly more powerful than the R32 GTR. And now the fastest new skyline is the equivalent of a GTS.

And you're comparing an RB20DE to a VQ35DE????

Sigh ....Okay whatever, just proving that my facts were straight that is all.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you were the one who compared them to RB20DE/RB25DE engines. And you were the one who said that they aren't as powerful as a R34GTT.

I guess it doesn't help that the V35's are the equivalent of the R32 GTS, R33 GTS and R34 GT -

And they don't make more power than a GTT.  Get your facts straight.

You don't like them..... I like them

You like angles....... I like curves and angles

You like old styles .... I like new styles and old styles

So we appreciate different things.

I appreciate all cars for wht they are, I have owned four turbo cars (two skylines, a 300zx and a S13) to date. But I am not going to let that bias me against N/A engines or newer car designs.

As I said before, some people can acccept change and don't mind thinking differently, others don't have it within themselves.

We all have different tastes. Each to their own!

Looks are such a subjective thing, yet they hold considerable sway over the decisions we make on a regular basis. What does it do actually do for us owning a car that 'looks' nice? Probably not much.

My 2c- not a bad looking car, a bit too much like a 350Z (also ok looks wise, but why make 2 cars so similar in design, looks & performance?). Also as someone else said, a bit too similar to the competition (TTs, Mercs etc)- lacks the distinguishability (if that's a word) of its predecessors. I mourn the death of the stove tops, and even more the in line 6. Surely balance shafts are a sign that you are going about things the wrong way...

well you all should be happy in about a year they are going to put into production the r 36 it is loosely based on a r34 but has the vq35 out of the 350 and infiniti which isn't all bad it will come awd and with a factory nismo twin turbo making in the area of around 400 hp so if you do or you don't like the infiniti version it shouldn't resemble it that much the only odd thing is it will be called the infiniti gt-r go figure

well you all should be happy in about a year they are going to put into production the r 36 it is loosely based on a r34 but has the vq35 out  of the 350 and infiniti which isn't all bad it will come awd and with a factory nismo twin turbo making in the area of around 400 hp so if you do or you don't like the infiniti version it shouldn't resemble it that much the only odd thing is it will be called the infiniti gt-r go figure

That is potentially only a US and Jap model...

I have to admit the new skyline is growing on me...there are a few 35's over here and I like them...

the r 36 it is loosely based on a r34

C'mon man, this is getting really tedious... here goes on behalf of Funkymonkey: how can there be an R36 when there isn't even an R35? And why would Nissan design a new car based on one that was originally designed in the early '90s?

I see you're from the US...

My 2 cents. Don't like the new version at all. They have foresaken the traditionally agressive / robust Japanese muscle car look for a Euro run-of-the-mill style. In the past NISSAN has delivered machines that looked agressive and intimidating FROM THE FACTORY. Now, it's just like every other car that you can spend a packet on to make it look the goods. They may drive and brake etc like a weapon but it'd be like sleeping with a nympho version of Pauline Hanson........ It's just not right !! :)

C'mon man, this is getting really tedious... here goes on behalf of Funkymonkey: how can there be an R36 when there isn't even an R35? And why would Nissan design a new car based on one that was originally designed in the early '90s?

I see you're from the US...

well i see i've touched a nerve well let me spill some american knowledge on you why would nissan design a new car based on one that was designed in the 90s,

why did porshce wait 8 years to bring back a 911 turbo in the late 90s

and an r 35 prototype was produced and never reached outside japan

obviously you must not be from the us

well i see i've touched a nerve well let me spill some american knowledge on you why would nissan design a new car based on one that was designed in the 90s,

why did porshce wait 8 years to bring back a 911 turbo in the late 90s

and an r 35 prototype was produced and never reached outside japan

obviously you must not be from the us

Omg... somebody tell this guy who I am...

well i see i've touched a nerve well let me spill some american knowledge on you why would nissan design a new car based on one that was designed in the 90s,

why did porshce wait 8 years to bring back a 911 turbo in the late 90s

and an r 35 prototype was produced and never reached outside japan

obviously you must not be from the us

You haven't touched a nerve buddy... I just can't believe you said 'R35', after everything thats been posted here and all over the 'net.

Hmmm, ok... 'spill some American knowledge' on me then... so far you haven't made much sense?

Actaully, I'll go first:

Try this thread and this thread for info on your so called 'R35' and your supposed 'R34 based' 'R36'...

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...