R32 Was A Bigger Step Forward Than R35

[Duncan]

[Nismo_Boy]

<truestory>

[BAMR33]

the end.

[sh@un]

yes, but....

the R35 is a much better car

[silver gts-t]

yes, but....

the R35 is a much better car

in 2007 yes

but which car was a better achievement in its own time?

[sh@un]

You've just asked the same question (in a slightly different format) Duncan posed that I've already answered John

[silver gts-t]

now that i re read, yes..

so we all agree? the end

lol

Edited November 23, 2007 by silver gts-t

[Nismo_Boy]

yes, but....

the R35 is a much better car

Still looks like ass though..

[Duncan]

well....lets try and get some facts down.

32 compared to other cars of the time.

twin turbo

computer controlled 4wd

abs4 wheel steer

remember it was quicker than the porsches of its day. toyota then made a supra, honda the nsx, mitsu the gto - none of which except maybe the nsx had the same sort of advancement

also, everyone saying the 35 is meant to be exclusive, supercar etc remember that is exactly where the 32 was pitched price and marketing wise.

35.

twin turbo

computer controlled 4wd

hmm sounds the same to me

[Amir]

There comparing the r35 to a koenigg (spelling?) which takes it to levels the r32 never got to.

In standard form there's nothing that special about an R32.

[Yo-Yo]

I see the R35 as Japan's first "proper" attempt at a supercar in the purest sense of the word

sure there was the NSX, but now there's a car from Japan that can mix it with the big boys straight out of the box

and it's 1/8th the price of the european stablemates

and there's two more versions yet to be released

and best of all of it's a Nissan

The r32 might have been a markedly bigger step back in 1989, but the fact it was based off the skyline platform seems to dilute the formula just a tad.

Could you imagine if the gtr was based off a V35? Again, the v35 (or v37 now I guess) is a great car in it's own respect but to base the GTR off of it?

[scathing]

The R35 is a successor to the R34, which is a beast of a car. But with 500ps, a lot of CF in the construction, and an almost racing-spec engine its more than just baby steps.

However, the R32 replaced the R31....and that's like comparing Godiva chocolate to what's in the septic tank at a Mexican restaurant.

So yes, the R32 was a much bigger step forward.

<Flamesuit: ON>

[Duncan]

But the thing is, the 32 was compared to "supercars" of the time, although the term hardly existed in 1989. It wasn't until mclaren f1, jag xj220, bugatti eb110 etc came along in the 90s that people talked about supercars.

Another thing that stuck me - suspension.

r31 strut front and semi trailing indepenant rear (from the 1600 in the 60s)

r32 double wishbone front and multilink wishbone rear

r35 double wishbone front and multilink wishbone rear

[pablo101]

compare todays technology to that of 20 years ago, you have to admit they did VERY good with the R32

[Sydneykid]

My 20 cents;

Bet the 35 doesn't have the same rediculous dynamic camber change angles that the 32 has

Bet the 35 doesn't have the same bump steer that the 32 has

Bet the 35 doesn't have the excessive rear squat that the 32 has

Bet the standard 35 shocks are a damn site better than the crap the 32 had

The lower unsprung weight of the 35 would make it far superior in traction, for braking, for accelerating and for cornering

We all know that the 35 is damn site quieter inside, the db ratings are impressive, 89 32's are tiring to drive long distances

The 1989 32 had pretty average brakes for its weight

The ABS was way slow and did not have the programming for wet and dirty roads

Let's face it, HICAS was a pretty terrible idea

The 32 ATTESA is very slow to activate, even compared to a 33 and a 34, so a 35 must be heaps better than a 32

I am not a fan of V6's, they just don't have the song of a straight 6, but that 35 engine is a gem (for a V6)

I am looking forward to not having to rev a standard GTR to 4,500 rpm before anything meaningfull happens

On an equivalent dollar for dollar basis, the 35 is actually less than half the cost of a 32.

Add it all up and the 35 is a good couple of generations better in every way than a 32. But (there is always a but) the 32 was a very big step over every Nissan that went before it. I believe that is the case because it was designed for Group A racing, it was specifically engineered to beat the best that the other car manufacturers could come up with. And it sure as hell did that, in spades. So the answer from my perspective is that the 32 was definitely a bigger step, but the 35 is much better car at a truely amazing price.

Cheers

Gary

[Sarumatix]

But the thing is, the 32 was compared to "supercars" of the time, although the term hardly existed in 1989. It wasn't until mclaren f1, jag xj220, bugatti eb110 etc came along in the 90s that people talked about supercars.

Another thing that stuck me - suspension.

r31 strut front and semi trailing indepenant rear (from the 1600 in the 60s)

r32 double wishbone front and multilink wishbone rear

r35 double wishbone front and multilink wishbone rear

What you are forgetting, is that all car development comes in different ways. I mean once upon a time people excited over triple webbers etc. The new GTR has multiple suspension settings (hard vs soft, snow vs tarmac etc), AYC (forget nissans name) control etc. Sure there are other cars with this, but not at the "supercar" level AFAIK. Probably the more important thing is weight distribution, the R32 had terrible balance, the R35 from what I understand is pretty close to or is perfect. This is probably the reason why even with 1700Kg it's mixing it with the best.

[Kozeyekan]

No one is dsiputing the R35 is the better car at all, but saying that the R32 was a bigger advancement at the time than the R35.

1.What does the R35 have that no other car does?

no really that much. most of the technology has been used elsewhere previously. The R32 had more prototype technology in it. HICAS may not have been used much in racing, but it was available and new at the time as far as I know. The twin turbo setup was a first for a mass produced petrol engine.

2.What has the R35 done?

So far, not much. Until it's acheived something, it's just a bauble. Much like the Ferrari Enzo. All show, no result. A race car that does not race is nothing but a matchbox car supersized.

No need to list the R32's acheivements here. We all know them.

3.How much better is it than it's competitors?

R35: perhaps a little bit. Time will tell. The nuburgring times seem to state that it'll outperform most cars by a small margin. How dominant it is will be refelected in it's race eprformance.

r32: Pooped on most other cars in all forms of racing it entered.

Also something to consider is the other racers. Remember the touring cars? The Ford and Holden drivers were pissed! Yet, if any one of them had their choice of car to race in to win, you can guarantee they'd pick the R32. Ditto for all the race fans not bred to be little lions or falcons.

The R35 does not have the same mystique. Ask a kid who watches racing what his dream car is, and he might mention a ferrari, lamborghini, whatever. The R35 has much closer competition than the R32 did.

So, I'd say the R32 WAS a bigger step forward. It influenced the whole racing world, kick started the japanese performance vehicle scene (remember that "Made in japan" was a joke until late 70's/ early 80's) and revolutionised racing. The R35 is a better car, but hasn't had anywhere near that impact (yet).

It's kind of like comparing Alonso to Senna. Alonso is a champion, but he wasn't so far ahead of his competitors when they had similiar cars, whereas Senna won in all conditions with some top notch cars, and some pretty ordinary ones, against obscenely talented drivers.

The R35 is closer to it's competitors than the R32 was, so it'll have a much harder time of it. Still, it'll be worth watching.

[hungry6]

The R32 was a massive step forward in terms of thinking and engineering, where as the R35 is more of the existing technology repackage.

a car that comes out almost 20years later wanna be head and shoulder better than it exist forebear.

I just find it frustrating that in the current performance climate where other makers are going light and smaller with similar or more performance and Nissan has come along with more performance with more weight. To me it isn't a forward step in thinking or engineering, But a car maker has to be profitable, that's the whole point of being in business.

[Bumblebee]

Long live the R32 GTR

[Adriano]

The lower unsprung weight of the 35 would make it far superior in traction, for braking, for accelerating and for cornering

Gary, do you think the r35 will have lower unsprung weight, or just a lower relative weight?