scathing

The problem with not running it early is that you hit traffic. If I was going to cruise through the metropolitan area only then yeah, I'd run it a lot later. But with the roads we're taking, I'm trying to avoid as many tourists as possible. I will probably arrange a shorter-length, lunch-oriented, cruise as well in the near future. So maybe a 10:00 start, and with a plan to be at the destination by midday. If someone on here arranges it and is happy to have the "other" FM platform car tag along, then I'll let the Tech guys know and I'm sure they'll be up for it.

How "serious" is she about it? Show, or go? When it comes to European cars, the sky's the limit. If she wants to stick to Euro brands, I'd suggest searching for: Bilstein Suspension Remus exhaust Brembo brakes BBS wheels

OK, official 350Z-Tech cruise details are up. http://www.350z-tech.com/forums/index.php?...=32472&st=0 It is a dawn run, to avoid as much traffic for as long as possible while not doing it in the middle of the night.

Who's to say that sliding isn't alright? In all seriousness, if you're just starting out on track work its good to keep your limits lowered. Learning how to drive your car at the limit is a lot easier and safer when you're not going fast, and so if/when it breaks away you've got more time to react and the cost of failure is lower. My recommendation is to go call up the usual motorsport tyre shops (Gordon Leven, Garys, etc) and find out if they have any used R comp tyres in your size. Chances are they'll be shagged, but they'll be cheap and they'll have good heat resistance (compared to regular street tyres). I picked up a set of dead Advan A032Rs from Gordon Leven in 235/45 R17 for $80 a pop. They were practically on the indicators, and they had about as much grip as a set of street tyres. I did 3 track days and there was almost no wear exhibited. However, I could go flat out for the full 15 minutes of the track session and they never overheated, unlike if I'd bought Nankangs or some other street tyre and tried the same thing. Don't expect to set any lap records on them, and there's a good chance you'll be hanging the tail out, but they'll be better at handling circuit loads / temps than buying some $100 Nankang's or Wan-Li's. If you're not planning on daily driving on these wheels, their tread depth won't be an issue. Once you improve your track craft and start hunting for tenths, then maybe look at going to a wider rim and getting fresher R-Comps. But, for now, I'd say they were fine.

Does Skaifey still own HRT? If so, contract or not, it still wouldn't be in his best interest to be seen in a racing Nissan...especially the one associated with decimating the type of car the team he owns still competes in.

I'm amazed that you picked up on the concept of aero, but completely forgot about gearing. If we're talking 0-100 and quarter mile sprints, gearing will play a far more important role than aero when it comes to their times. Don't forget about the intended market of both vehicles. The GT-R, despite all the guff about it being a "luxury sports car to take it to the 911", still meant to earn that red R and be a road legal race car. That means a relatively close ratio box, to keep the engine on the boil and improve acceleration on the relatively finite-length straight of a race track. Given that the GT-R is still a Japanese hero car (where most cars are limited to 180km/hr, and you can't legally go that fast on the street) and its biggest market will undoubtedly be the US (where 65mph is still the average highway speed limit) chances are the car will be geared a lot shorter to give better acceleration on the track. The non GT range of 911s are meant to be road cars, and so in their domestic market (where you can sit at 250km/hr+ on the "freeway") their gearing is going to let their owners just monster people on the 'bahn while not banging off the limiter, as well as beat their speed-limited BMW, Mercedes and Audi competitors when it comes to V-Maxing. Most of the Euro supercars also like to brag about their 320km/hr+ top speeds and standing kilometre drag times, whereas the US / Japanese ones tend to focus more on the 0-100km/hr & 0-400m times, so once again the gearing required to optimise those times could separate them. The other thing I can think of is the gearbox. If they're comparing the 997 Turbo against the DSG equipped GT-R, the GT-Rs faster gearchange (and probable launch control) could also overcome the power / weight deficit.

You haven't explained why it doesn't make sense to you, so clarifying it is going to be near impossible for me. I don't see where the problem is, and you haven't told anyone where you think a problem is, so any reply I make could be completely irrelevant to your concerns. So, why doesn't it make sense to you?

I don't see, based on what you've just said, why it doesn't.

Quite a few of those guys have gotten pretty "serious" about track work, and the Z33 has traditionally been more of the sports car than the GT-oriented Skyline. The fact that the Z's been in Australia since 2003 means people have had far more time to set them up too. But, its about having fun. I was thinking about not running timing so people could just go out and enjoy themselves, but I get the feeling people will still want to know how fast they're going.

Also, anyone interested in a Wakefield private track day for Nissan FM platform cars? The guys on Tech are raring to go, and it'd be interesting to see the difference between the two cars.

So have you permanently removed the ATTESSA fuse in your GT-R then, or is it no fun either?

I only read your original post from people quoting it in reply. Apology accepted. Peace, dude. I'd agree with you that the local rags are a bit useless when it comes to info. I remember when I bought my 350Z, the Drive section of a "respected" national newspaper chain printed that Nissan was dropping the price of the Z by $6K. It sounded a bit too good to be true, especially since the car had only hit the market and it was selling like hotcakes (there was a 3 month wait for them) but hey, its a respected newspaper. Rolled up to a Nissan dealer to go haggle over their price, they told me what the plausibility of them discounting was when 3/4 of the dealers couldn't even retain a Z for long enough to use as a demonstrator, and that they were considering suing Fairfax for publishing that dross. If its not about a Ford or Holden, or a European manufacturer drip-feeding spin for free publicity to markets that overprice their cars compared to their domestic sales (and that you could have gotten faster off the Internet), the guys down here don't have a clue.

The original BMW SMG changed gears at 80ms in its fastest setting, which is faster than any human could do it in. Too bad the thing sucked around town because it was too lurchy, and electronics gremlins would occasionally attack the thing and cause it to drop in to failsafe mode when pushed hard. So the thing was really good everywhere except on the street or in race conditions..... The first Ferrari "F1 gearbox" (I think it debuted in the 355?) did it in 250ms, which isn't that slow either. Except, around town, I think it had an appetite for clutches. I'd love a car with that DSG gearbox. Such an awesome concept, and from what I've heard from owners it works in practice. Always being on the power also means zero lag, as the engine never loses load and falls off boost.

When you say "auto", do you mean gear selection or clutch actuation? I'd agree if its the former and disagree if its the latter, I can't think of any auto gear selecting race cars (pretty sure even most drag cars still have to select gears manually), and there's a reason why F1 cars only use a clutch pedal off the line.

The Americans aren't the only race that have the "Not Made Here" attitude. Wheels and Motor are regularly wrong on their "scoops", as well, or get it from the same web sites they do. I remember when they "featured" a 450Z clubsport racer scoop, a vehicle that no-one's heard a peep about since it hit the Internet and then the Aussie car mags about a month after.

Actually, the wording on the RTA web site is that P platers cannot drive a car with engine performance modifications. Ironically, the letter of said restriction means if you put a higher RON fuel in....you just technically violated the terms of your license. Same with putting more restrictive bolt-ons. Reducing power is still "modifying" power. However, there's no rule that says a P plater can't drive a car with the interior gutted (in a fashion that is legal for a full license holder), R Comps, and a close ratio gearbox / final drive, That kind of legal modification still gives the car a higher effective power-to-weight, and more acceleration via gearing and initial traction. They can also run aftermarket suspension as well, and increasing their cornering speed / reducing the approachability of the handling limits....which for an unskilled driver is also a recipe for an accident.

Are you after a cruiser or a corner carver? If you're after the former, very little tops the Skyline. It handles reasonably well as a grand tourer should, has good interior space, and the engine's torquey and willing (and sounds awesome). Its also pretty comfortable. I suppose you could get a NA Supra or Prelude / FWD Celica / MX6, but I don't like the former (personal bias) and the latter range are only for pansies (statement of fact). If you want something for "the touge" or track then get a lightweight boy racer car like a Silvia, Integra or MX5 and, being on P plate restrictions, gut the interior to reduce weight for improved speed.

Not a blader myself, but this looks like an insane amount of fun: http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moog...mp;fullscreen=1

As a suggestion, why not do a few track days to become a half decent driver? Learn how to park and commute on the street, but if you want to learn how to drive a sports car the way it was intended, do it in a controlled environment. Wakefield Park runs open days regularly and, during the week, it can be almost deserted (which may be a concern if you want to learn and don't want to get monstered). Its far and it costs some money to do, but you'll find it a far more rewarding experience than tearing through the Nasho trying to avoid tourists in camper vans, cyclists, learner drivers, small animals, and the cops.

But, if I don't keep trying to tell people that NA is best, they'll never learn! I thought about it, and if I could afford two cars (daily driver runabout and a dedicated sports car) I'd get the runabout with a turbo, set up for fuel economy like the Saabs or turbo diesels) and get the sports car as NA, for the responsiveness. A dedicated sports car will be ultra lightweight anyway, so I don't need power.

OK, lets go through your "benefits as a twisties/track vehicle". Oh-kay. How does "looks" make it go any faster through the twisties or track? I'm still not seeing how a big, fat, front heavy, car is still better than a lighter and shorter car as a base for modifying. Its not like the Silvia or Integra are missing a solid aftermarket range, and so they can get suspension work done. You've still yet to address my concerns that the Skyline's too long and with far too much engine in front of the front struts to have good steering response, and a lot heavier than its competitors which punishes it under brakes, on turn-in, and exacerbates the front heaviness problem when trying to change direction through a set of switchbacks. The only way you can really "fix" that is to install a shorter, lighter motor. Which defeats the purpose of buying the Skyline in the first place. He's not comparing it to other Skylines. He's comparing it to other cars. Once again, pretty much irrelevant to your "great for twisties" assertion. OK, so its a great car if you want a career as a mechanic. Its got sweet f**k all to do with being a good car for the winding road. I will, once you take back your comment that its actually any good for street/track performance. Half the examples you've given above is that its cheap, not fast. I can do that in a Mazda2 or Pulsar SSS, which don't even look like a sports cars and so are even more offensive when the RX-8 driver gets chopped. You seriously don't know what the word context means, do you? Kevin's question is if should he buy a NA Skyline over other NA sports cars, not why he shouldn't not buy it. You've given reasons why the GTS isn't that bad, not why its better than a Silvia, Clio, Integra etc. You say its good for twisties/track, something I asked you to clarify since the laws of physics are against you, and your above "benefits" do nothing to prove it.

"One of the fastest" is not "the fastest". And, as I said in a previous thread, its still more than half a minute off the production car lap record.

Given that we're talking about this: I'm struggling to think of one "positive" a NA Skyline has. Especially when Kevin84 was initially asking if he should buy a NA Skyline over other NA vehicles he could consider. I'll concur that the NA Skyline, having less weight up the front, should turn in and change direction a little better than a turbo Skyline (all else being equal) and will have far better throttle response and more linear power delivery but, compared to the other NA cars Kevin said he was considering the GTS has still got a big, long, cast iron lump hanging past the front struts. And a pretty long wheelbase. It doesn't add up to a car that's going to want to change directions. As a car for the twisties, I'm not seeing the positives over an SR20DE powered S13, Pulsar SSS, a EK Civic DC2 Integra VTiR, Mazda MX5, or a Peugeot 205 GTi (all of which should be starting at around the AUD$10K mark). If you're not caring about straight line power, the cars I've listed are far more chuckable by virtue of their weight and short wheelbase. Go to $15K range and you're into RenaultSport Clio territory, which has the R33 GTS (and most production cars) beat on the ability to get from one end of the twisties to the other in the least amount of time, while putting the biggest smile on the dial. So, as a twisties/track car (and, for the latter, trust me when I tell you that you need power) what positive does the GTS have?

You shouldn't have bought a RWD car, then. With a FWD car you're more likely to go head-first into a tree, but a RWD's greater tendency to oversteer means "wrapping" is a more likely scenario. You haven't been on the Internet for very long, have you? This is a discussion forum. That means you're going to get discussions, which will have multiple points of view. If you've got a problem with other people's opinions (and you can't respect their decision to vocalise them) you can always be proactive and unsubscribe from the thread.

Someone needs to invent a version of Godwin's Law for Skyline otaku and calling Bathurst. It also conveniently ignores the fact that the Nissan teams had a much higher budget than most of the teams driving local machinery (the GT-R was a 911-priced vehicle racing against Holdens and Fords), which helps a great deal in racing. Were you going to break out the old story that the GT-R was the first "production car" to break 8 minutes at the Nordschleife too? Sure it wasn't actually in production trim, but don't let that get in the way of a good yarn. Secondly, one would only assume I "mean all Skylines" if they were incapable of understanding context. Try reading my post again, this time at a high school level of English. My first paragraph clearly says that I'm talking about NA Skylines, and is a pretty short summary. The second paragraph goes into a bit more depth. Especially since the post I quoted is specifically limited to talking about non-turbo Skylines and I was replying directly to that.