Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi guys

had my first bad experience when it rained in melb yesterday, was taking a standard turn around and roundabout at about 40km/h (not accelerating) and the back end totally drifted and almost put me off the road, lucky i was taught how to correct shit like that but anyways i was extremely surprised how easily it lost tracktion, i think its probbaly i have shitty tyres, they came on the car and are brand new but i dont think they had the fact that it rains in the world when they designed them as it doesnt seem to hold at all in the wet, is this a common skyline problem or just my tyres ? if so what tyres would you guys recommend, im a newbie driver and i dont do anything stupid,i'd just like to be able to not hold up traffic going half the speed limit when it rains :) i wanna be able to trust my car in the wet if yas know what i mean

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/9561-skyline-handling-in-wet/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd definitely take a look at your tyres there! It should be doing it at that speed without any acceleration.

It can also be about clutch control..you have to be a lot easier in the wet and let the revs out slowly. Can be hard with a very in/out clutch but it can be done. I'm still learning mine a bit after a couple of months.

poor guys with only 2 wheels driving your cars

Well it makes us learn how to drive properly! The amount of WRX that get invovled in accidents because they shove it around corners in the dry at xxx speed, and then when it rains - slide.. "oh it never did _this_ in the dry..what do i do"...crunch!

my tyres are absolute shit... i take off from the lights in second gear and they spin and my clutch control isnt the issue and u can forget 1st gear launches... i took a corner with no feet on any pedals at about 30kmh and it slid out and i ended up in the other lane (my ass end did). this corner is something u should be able to take at at least 50 in the wet its not sharp by any stretch of the imagination

my tyres are ultra grippy in the dry... but as soon as it rains... they may as well be made of ice.

I think all skylines are subject to slipping in the wet. I have almost had about 3 or 4 accidents when i first started driving the line.

I dont think its the wheels. I did a little test with them. I took the wheels off my bros car, which is a V8 and put them on mine, and the car kept on sliding on tight curves at about 30 ks.

I tried my brothers car and it stuck to the ground at about 45 ks.

Does your car have abs?

If so, has it ever saved your ass in the wet?

If so, learn to brake properly and pump the pedal rather than jamming it.

Get my point?

Besides, I'm sure 4wd drivers will agree with me here. Boosting in the wet is hella fun when all 4 wheels light up.

Originally posted by predator666

Well it makes us learn how to drive properly! The amount of WRX that get invovled in accidents because they shove it around corners in the dry at xxx speed, and then when it rains - slide.. "oh it never did _this_ in the dry..what do i do"...crunch!

Originally posted by poyz

real men with money drive 4wd skylines (of the gtr variety)

real men who are poor can't afford 4wd skylines.

well that explains why u drive a GTI-R not a GTR bro....and Gtr skylines aren't technically full time 4wd if u wanna get into details atessa baby rear wheel biased :rolleyes:

That's funny, last I checked this thread was about driving 'Line's in the wet.

Now, consider this scenario. A GTR driver boosts it in the wet. Looses traction. Fronts wheels kick in right. Effectively making them 4wd.

GTS-t driver boosts it in the wet. Goes sideways and hopefully kills himself because he's an idiot and knows his car will obviously loose traction.

So, all in all. Yes, I know they're rear biased. But this is wet weather driving in a Line. They front wheels will obviously get torque transfered to them.

As for me, I enjoy boosting it in all types of weather.

One more thing.

If I wanted a skyline I would have got one. Even over two years ago when I got my car these GTS-t's were about as common as a Commodore/Falcon around Melb. And over two years ago, I couldn't afford a GTR, I was still studying.

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

    • 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
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...