Big Rizza

Agreed the Cayman doesn't have the passion of the 911. But still, I doubt the GT-R will match the steering feel and feedback that the Cayman will give. The Cayman will feel more like a sportscar than the GT-R. And I already said that on raw performance the GT-R would be faster than the Cayman, so a giant fat balding overly-cynical Brittish git driving hamfistedly around an airport doesn't prove much. Even less telling would be if a short white toothed daytime television hosting Hamster were to do it instead (P.S. I am the Stig)

Because Porsche constantly set the benchmark for sportscar handling and performance Looks are subjective and you can make up your own mind there. But performance is less so. The GTR would not outperform a 997 911 Turbo stock vs. stock. The 911 has more power, less weight, and a better weight distrobution for straight line stuff. Plus the rear engine plus all-wheel-drive gives the Porsche unparallelled traction out of corners. And the lower centre of gravity and low inertial for the front wheels gives it potentially better handling character. The smaller frontal area and superior aerodynamics give it better top end. However, from a price point of view, the GT-R would be competing with the Porsche Cayman (13.X second 1/4 mile), which indeed it would out perform from a raw numbers point of view. But could it match the feel and passion of a Cayman? Perhaps you aren't paying enough attention - the difference between one generation to the next is always under the skin. Again, you aren't paying enough attention. If you for an instant think the differences between the 993 and 996 models are purely cosmetic, with only a small hp increase, then you are sorely mistaken... The Porsche 911 sets the benchmark for sportscar performance. Surely to even be compared to the flagship turbo model, with an asking price around half of what the Porsche is, should be one of the greatest compliments the GTR could recieve? It doesn't need to beat the Porsche - merely to get near it at half the price will make the GT-R special enough for me!

I think the Infinity Q45 is more comarable to the Toyota Celsior than anything else in the Nissan lineup. The Stagea is a completely different ball game.

Be careful what you wish for. If Nissan of Australia release the GT-R straight away, that completely eliminates any possibility of a SEVS workshop getting approval to import, meaning no cheap imports!

You have to remember that the 996 911 Turbo is about to be replaced with a new 997 911 Turbo with over 350kw. And where the 996 911 has a 4WD system like a GTR, with the rear getting a fixed % of the drive until wheel spin occurs, the 4WD system in the 997 will have no fixed distrobution, rather it will continuously vary where the power is going to get maximum possible traction. So like an EVOIX active yaw control system on steroids. So that would make it even quicker, if not more fun. Plus they will no doubt release a 997 911 Turbo S at somepoint, probably with around 500hp (375-is kw if I remember rightly). Plus never underestimate the torque of a 911. Or any Porsche of any power output. So don't be too quick to say it's better than a 911 Turbo. It's the best car in the world after all! (Maybe a bit of an overstatement, but you get the point ) After talking it up that much, I might go and buy a Porsche now...

My quote from November last year: I think my guess was pretty good!

From http://www.prestigemotorsport.com.au/modul....php?storyid=21 Can someone read the japanese article in the link and tell me whether this is genuinely CONFIRMED? Or is it just more hyped up speculation? I noticed a question mark in the heading of the first page on the original Japanese article, so I got suspicious... I realise I might have more success in the Japan section, but I figured there would be potentially more interest in this section... Also, the Prestige comments imply that the next GT-R will be eligible for import, in turn implying that Nissan Australia are not bringing it in! More speculation?

Wow, you did well with your XR6. Would it be a manual by any chance? The autos I have driven fair much worse I am afraid! I drive the base Falcon XT's on a regular basis when commuting up to site where I work. I recieve the vehicle with a full tank of fuel. I set cruise control to 110km/h, aside from the odd overtaking manouver, and I get similar fuel usage to yours. Bearing in mind I am only cruising, that is shockingly bad! That's about 2 litres/100km worse than I average in a Commodore on the same trip. My Dad has a BF Fairmont Ghia. It's an old mans car, driven by an old man like an old man. The BF updates to the engine management, plus two extra gear ratios mean reduced fuel usage over the BA, and his trip computer shows 13.6 litres/100km. Maybe I have just had thirsty experiences? Or maybe your trip computer was a little off?

Even the 3.6 litre engine is at least 50kw down on the EL. The total drag difference of the EL and XW probably wouldnt be as great as you've suggested due to the increased frontal area of the EL. But no doubt the EL would still be ahead in that respect. But meh, Falcons get shit fuel economy anyways. If you think the EL is bad, wait until you try the BA. They hover at around 13-14 litres per 100km in normal driving. I don't think a falcon is a good representation of how modern technology is coming along. No one buys a Falcon for economy - That's why they have an LPG option. That's how my Toyota Yaris found its way into my driveway

XW FALCON Engine: 3.1 Litre 88kw 6cyl Length: 4689mm Width: 1869mm Height: 1417mm Wheelbase: 2819mm Front track: 1496mm Rear track: 1486mm Kerb weight: 1348kg EL FALCON Engine: 4 litre 6cy with 157kw (up 0.9 litres and 69kw) Length: 4906mm (up 217mm) Width: 1861mm (up 6mm) Height: 1453mm (up 36mm) Wheelbase: 2791mm (DOWN 28mm) Front Track: 1566mm (up 70mm) Rear Track: 1547mm (up 61mm) Kerb Weight: 1536kg (up 188kg) So the falcon has a considerably bigger engine, the car is bigger in every direction (although wheelbase is shorter) weighs in at nearly 200kg heavier, and the difference in kw's could power another car. Plus the XW Falcon had the advantage of higher octane leaded fuel. Plus the EL has numerous ancilliaries which would require fuel to operate - aircon, CD player, central locking, a catalytic converter (due to efficiency drop), electric windows etc. The way I see it is over two decades of R&D between the 1970s and mid 1990s allows us to have a bigger, faster, safer, more luxurious vehicle with no penalty to fuel consumption, and pay less money for the privilage of ownership (after adjusting for inflation of course ). And in the 10 years of R&D since then, things have gotten REALLY good, I reckon. The Astra SRi Turbo for example. A 0-100 km/h time in the mid-low sevens - and yet the ability to gain open-road fuel economy in the high sixes. One hundred and forty seven kilowatts from a turbo 2-litre - and yet peak torque is available from 1950 - 5600 rpm. Plus the official government test figures show that the turbo 2-litre is actually more fuel-efficient than the naturally aspirated SRi around the city - 8.5 litres/100km for the turbo and 9 litres/100 for the naturally aspirated. And no I don't work for Holden. Nor do I own an Astra. Although I think I might have just convinced myself to take one for a test drive

It was my daily driver during Uni when I had no money. I have a cheap car for my daily now that I have money. Probably the wrong way around to do things, but hey, I could only afford one car at uni, it may as well be a fun one! Unfortunatly these days with work, I only take the skyline out 2 or 3 times per month. Two weeks away followed by a week working in the city means that it pretty much doesn't get used during that period. Then in my week off I might dust it off and take it out for some fun.

I got 9.8 litres per 100km after 450km of driving for my last tank at 11psi and buggered coil packs. There was an abnormal amount of freeway cruising for that tank however... My other car uses less than 7 litres per 100km with its 1497cc's of raw automatic power and 5 star NCAP crash safety while running 0 psi

Yeah I totally agree. I don't think the council will pay for damage caused by an impact due to a drivewy lip being too high. In the same way they won't pay for damage to your car caused by an impact due to the posted speed limit being too high.

Yeah, the no clutch gear change is always a good party trick It's really easy on the 3-4 change in my R32 GTS-T.

I found a cure for my rear end traction problems: Bolts straight in under the accelerator pedal.

Haha, a someone complaining about the resale of a Renaultsport Clio on a website devoted to Japanese Imports - Oh the irony of it all!

I'll add another to my list: 2006 Renaultsport Clio 147kw nat atmo 4cyl engine 6 speed manual 5 star crash safety rating All in a supermini bodyshell! What more could you want? And it has other groovy things like an F1 style rear diffuser and keyless-go.

Link works fine for me! And on opening the link I see that you have posted your VIN there, so I will assume you worked it all out!

300rwkw is a lot in an R32 GTST... Stock Rb20 transmission will be shredded, and RB20DET would be hard to drive (laggy) with that much power. So you're looking at a motor and transmission swap. Then add turbos, intercoolers, dyno tune, ECU, injectors, fuel pump, possibly differential, probably suspension (springs, dampers, swaybars, strut braces etc) and brakes, new wheel and tyre package (stock R32 tyres will be too narrow for 300rwkw!) which might require lipping/flaring of the guards, exhaust, dump pipe, cold air intake, clutch, manifold, etc. You might want to do some internal work too, if you're keen - pistons, rods, etc. But do you REALLY need 300rwkw... I mean REALLY? Leave those power levels to the GTRs, I reckon! And the VTECs!

I got a new job and splurged out on an X360, after vowing not to buy one! Bought Oblivion and Project Gotham Racing. Oblivion is incredible!

These guys will run a check for you. Just post your VIN and someone will post the model details. http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...showtopic=44182

A stock NSX might be quicker than a stock GTR around a track, but I reckon a stock GTR N1 or GTR NUR would swing that back the other way. I reckon the N1 might even pip the NSX-R around a track! But this is all opinion at the moment... (Remember Wheels magazine ran a 12.6 quarter mile from an N1 GTR, and Wheels typically run concervative times compared to some international magazines). And I reckon the Z-tune and 400R etc. are NISMO special models, and a bit unfair to consider them a regular Nissan...

Flat spot usually refers to an unusual lack of torque over a speciffic RPM span - basically the car won't pull like it should!

My understanding is you can take this as a general rule: Any petrol engine with forced induction or high compression ratio (say 10:1 or higher) needs high octane fuel to stop preignition of the fuel, which can potentially damage engine interals. There are a few exceptions - the Honda Jazz runs something like 10.8:1 compression ratio, but still accepts regular unleaded. But as a general rule, it works.

Japanese spec S15 manuals ran 0-100 in about 5.6 as you stated - they have 184kw as standard. The Aussie cars were detuned to 147kw, and do 0-100 in low 6's in manual form. The auto's are slower again, with 0-100 in the 7's. A stock R32 GTST manual would chop a stock S15 auto very easily. But then that raises another question - why are you running LESS boost than a stocker? Dunno too much about modifying cars, but your set up seems good for around 1 bar boost if you ask me! BOOST THAT SUCKER UP!!!