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

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

[

I'll tell you what's not to like, it looks like garbage and doesn't have the previous aggression and street cred that all the previous GTR's claimed. I think the modell should be recalled and all of them destroyed, let a straight person design it next time.

Mate your a hard man.

Your going on about the new GTR that won't be seen or built for another 2 years yet you want all of them destroyed.

We are talking about the present Skyline GT coupe here.

Yeah the V35 is ugly look at these cops even with a bodykit they're not aggressive. But it will do for me it's the kit I have on order

post-98-1123108896.jpg

post-98-1123108931.jpg

yep sure is one ugly car :rolleyes:  

/sarcasm

theg1.jpg

theg5.jpg

Yep, sure is, looks like a peice of shit if you ask me.

I disagree i reckon this new Skyline rocks.The VQ35 absolutely demoralises the RB26,that to me is a more of a factor than looks alone.Let the good times roll. :lol:

The VQ35 absolutely demoralises the RB26,that to me is a more of a factor than looks alone.Let the good times roll. :lol:

Oh ahhh post #2 and you're going to need an asbestos suit when you knock a RB26 on here :rolleyes:

Shall we go on the ford forum and tell them Windsors and Cleavlands make good boat anchors (J/K) :unsure:

Oh ahhh post #2 and you're going to need an asbestos suit when you knock a RB26 on here ;)

Shall we go on the ford forum and tell them Windsors and Cleavlands make good boat anchors (J/K) :D

Didn't mean it in a bad way.It's just my opinion.Anyway you can't beat a Clevo these days with some real good Hi-po parts out on the market it's GAME OVER :rofl:

  • 4 weeks later...

I reckon the V35 GTR will look quite different compared to the coupe any way. Im thnk ink that the V35 coupe is like the gtst version of hte old gtr. Expect the famous stove lights and flared guards........something to look forward to in 2007 (I hope). :)

Edited by LANFOH
  • 3 weeks later...
Didn't mean it in a bad way.It's just my opinion.Anyway you can't beat a Clevo these days with some real good Hi-po parts out on the market it's GAME OVER :)

You can beat a clevo these days mate, thats for sure. Fords have taken the direction of "trying to be cool" and it just aint working. I think most people would have to agree that the tryhard attitude of Ford these days isnt paying off. I know i would prefer a GT-R than an FPV-GT any day of the week. By the way Holden still kick Fords ass.

  • 5 months later...

I have owned my '05 350GT Coupe now for about 2 weeks and it gets better and better the more I learn it. I'm in my mid to late 20's and was after a sports car that could also stretch its legs out and be enough like a tourer that I could drive Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane without requiring physio at the end of it.

I test drove Porsche Boxsters, Merc SLK350's, Nissan 350Z, Mazda RX-8, Lexus IS250, BMW 330Ci and a few other variants. Badge was of no consequence to me at the end of the day, I just wanted a car that was right. I owned a '03 Audi 1.8T Quattro and decided it was time for something new. Out of all the cars I drove, the ones that fit my requirements best were the 350Z and the 330Ci. Why? Well ...

Boxster was fantastic to drive but after an hour or so you started to feel the offset seating position in your back. No storage space for long drives and obviously a 2-seater ... not good for road trips to Bulldogs games!

SLK350 was a poor version of the Boxster ... same limitations although a fraction more comfortable. Not as good a drive.

RX-8 just didn't cut it for me. Drove reasonably well, but looked like a kitted-up Mazda 6 IMHO and just didn't grab me.

Lexus IS250 is an executive tourer ... not for me.

I didn't want another Audi ... don't ask why, too complicated to explain.

The 330Ci was nice, and I was almost convinced except for the fact that every man and his dog with disposable income drives one and I hate that fact.

The 350Z was the car I wanted, but the lack of extra seats made me hesitate. The only thing that drove better noticeably was the Boxster ... the 330Ci was great to drive but took away too many of the dynamics for my liking ... something the 350Z doesn't do if you get the Track variant.

I stumbled across the 4-seater 350GT Coupe by accident in Drummoyne, had a drive, found it to be fantastic and a better drive than the 350Z and I immediately sort out a way of importing one. Haven't looked back since.

Mine has a few mods to it ... basically suspension and exhaust with some minor interior tweaks. I have the blue coupe in 6spd manual (obviously!). The exhaust mod lifts the output to closer to 230kW from the standard 221kW.

For what I was after, it really was the only choice. Having driven quite a few Boxster's and Boxster S's I must say that this car is nearly every bit as good a drive with the suspension and exhaust mods. And at less than half the price, you really can't go wrong.

I am not a fan of the sedan shape though ... it's got to be coupe or bust in my opinion.

I have owned my '05 350GT Coupe now for about 2 weeks and it gets better and better the more I learn it. I'm in my mid to late 20's and was after a sports car that could also stretch its legs out and be enough like a tourer that I could drive Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane without requiring physio at the end of it.

I test drove Porsche Boxsters, Merc SLK350's, Nissan 350Z, Mazda RX-8, Lexus IS250, BMW 330Ci and a few other variants. Badge was of no consequence to me at the end of the day, I just wanted a car that was right. I owned a '03 Audi 1.8T Quattro and decided it was time for something new. Out of all the cars I drove, the ones that fit my requirements best were the 350Z and the 330Ci. Why? Well ...

Boxster was fantastic to drive but after an hour or so you started to feel the offset seating position in your back. No storage space for long drives and obviously a 2-seater ... not good for road trips to Bulldogs games!

SLK350 was a poor version of the Boxster ... same limitations although a fraction more comfortable. Not as good a drive.

RX-8 just didn't cut it for me. Drove reasonably well, but looked like a kitted-up Mazda 6 IMHO and just didn't grab me.

Lexus IS250 is an executive tourer ... not for me.

I didn't want another Audi ... don't ask why, too complicated to explain.

The 330Ci was nice, and I was almost convinced except for the fact that every man and his dog with disposable income drives one and I hate that fact.

The 350Z was the car I wanted, but the lack of extra seats made me hesitate. The only thing that drove better noticeably was the Boxster ... the 330Ci was great to drive but took away too many of the dynamics for my liking ... something the 350Z doesn't do if you get the Track variant.

I stumbled across the 4-seater 350GT Coupe by accident in Drummoyne, had a drive, found it to be fantastic and a better drive than the 350Z and I immediately sort out a way of importing one. Haven't looked back since.

Mine has a few mods to it ... basically suspension and exhaust with some minor interior tweaks. I have the blue coupe in 6spd manual (obviously!). The exhaust mod lifts the output to closer to 230kW from the standard 221kW.

For what I was after, it really was the only choice. Having driven quite a few Boxster's and Boxster S's I must say that this car is nearly every bit as good a drive with the suspension and exhaust mods. And at less than half the price, you really can't go wrong.

I am not a fan of the sedan shape though ... it's got to be coupe or bust in my opinion.

Good stuff Fender. nice choice. A great combination IMO of style and sportiness. Can you explain how it drove better than the 350z. not doubting you, just interested as from everything I read the 350z is a great ride.

also, how much are they going for these days - ball park figure will do.

  • 1 month later...

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...