Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i have a 3 page pdf covering skyline r34 gtr n1 vs holden gts monaro 300kw.

short story the gtr kills it in all aspects including torque and power.

1/4 is blows it away, 0 to 100 kills it and all around beats its as well

Hey guys, just a question..do you think a Holden HSV or Ford FPV can beat a fully Mod GTR R34 V-spec or can the HSVs and FPVs beat a Stock GTR R34 Vspec? please advice. To what i know in the previous thread, someone's R34 won a HSV by 1 sec in a 1/4 mile?  

Cheers

:chairshot

the red is the gtr btw :uh-huh:

My stock R34 gtr ( with 3" catback , i didn't have the stock catback ) did 12.8 @wsid .

Dead stock probably very low 13 or even 13 flat .

With very few mod it will do a flat 12 or very high 11 .

I would like to see a moded HSV or FPV pull anywhere near 12 with street tyres , stock they do 14's .

Looks like the HSV and FPVs dude can smell the smoke of the GTR then. How about a '96 R33 GTS25T series 2 against other cars. Which cars can the GTST stand a chance against?? Any chance against an STI?

Not a hope in hell , stock sti's are good for mid 13's , even stock normal rexes are good for flat 14 and some models even very high 13's .

Of course we are talking bog stock cars now , different story if moded .

My stock R34 gtr ( with 3" catback , i didn't have the stock catback ) did 12.8 @wsid .

Dead stock probably very low 13 or even 13 flat .

With very few mod it will do a flat 12 or very high 11 .

I would like to see a moded HSV or FPV pull anywhere near 12 with street tyres , stock they do 14's .

Come to Calder drag strip and you'll see a few Fords and holden crack 12's with street tyres. But then again you're not from Melb.

As for the 14's on stock, that's probably right for Ford but not the new HSV. Should be around mid 13's.

A stock R33 GTS-T will run about 14.5 second 1/4. Put some mods on it and it will go even faster. You will beat most stuff out there and it is a nice ride.

Costs a darn lot less than a new HSV or WRX too :)

we all know holdens and fords are shit. I watched my boss in his 4.0L V6 2tonne Toyota Prado with 3 of us and all our Nandos for lunch juuuust drag off a 230kW 6sp man. SS commondore owned by a co-worker. he was not impressed with his new SS. what a joke.

rb25

Yeah the holdens and fords have the numbers... well they advertise the numbers.

my na supra went reasonably well against an SS. Thats just crazy. They must talk up there kws by alot.

I'd luv to run one in my 32GTR, I think they would disapoint the bogans out there.

ps - as for the original question...

its not serious is it? is it even a question?

v8's are nothing but fuel chewing tanks. There only good for that 'sound' that some people say only a v8 can make.

I'm by no means bagging holden, i've seen a VT v6 run an 12.01 @ 120.58mph on street tyres, and that was with a nasty 2.133 60ft time, same car dynoed 440.8 rwhp with stock internals.

as for FPV's, well we all know the GT is just a name (not going to bag it though, loved the GTHO's to death) and i don't think anyone is impressed with the f6's start with the recall and clutch problems they had.

so all in all, my views $ to performance, you carn't go past a nice stock low km 33 :)

Plus if you then do decide to mod the 33, parts are quite easy to get, and arn't going to costly.

well that's my thoughts anyway

I watched my boss in his 4.0L V6 2tonne Toyota Prado with 3 of us and all our Nandos for lunch juuuust drag off a 230kW 6sp man. SS commondore owned by a co-worker. he was not impressed with his new SS. what a joke.

rb25

hahah are you serious??

What drag off from 0-20km/h?? :)

v8's are nothing but fuel chewing tanks.

There's a hell of a lot of RB25's out there only getting 300-350km's per tank.

That would make the LS1/LS2's better on fuel. :)

The majority of R33 GTST's are slow until you throw a PowerFC at it.

When I say slow I mean an R32 RB20DET with the same mods; fmic, boost and exhaust IS quicker.

Unless its some freak arsed 95' model ecu that doesn't have the horrible power dips. One I know of some time ago pulled 200rwkw with only the mods listed above. It ran a lowish 13 sec 1/4.

hahah are you serious??

 

What drag off from 0-20km/h?? :D

serious, from about 30k/hr to 100k/hr. I couldnt believe how quickly that 4L V6 revs out. The poor bastard doesnt talk the SS up anymore and he definately wont race my modded 33 now (aka 2L jap piece of shit). The pathetic thing is he sold his auto gen3 for a manual 'coz its quicker'. hilarious

-rb25

so normally what kind of performance  car can a stock or lightly mod R33 GTST go against? I just  wanna find out because i'm looking around for a 33.

Any. On the track, its as much about the driver as it is about the hardware.

I've seen a stock Hyundai Elantra get around modified S13s, S15s, R32s and R33's at Wakefield. But then the Nissans were being driven by ricers, and the Elantra was driven by a guy who races Formula Fords.

And, to answer your original question, a stock R34 N1 will beat a HSV, so unless the mods done make the car go slower then that's not going to change. Its not really fair to compare a stock car against a "fully mod" one though. The LS1 responds pretty well to "light" mods (especially when you remove the restrictive MAF from them).

But, if all you're interested in is quarter mile times, don't waste a GT-R. You're not really getting the point of a GT-R if your idea of what a performance car should do well is one dimensional.

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...