R32 Was A Bigger Step Forward Than R35

[floody]

I think the BNR32 was a massive step in philosophy. Its a completely different animal to a KPGC10 GT-R, C110 GT-R, HR31 GTS-R; not just technically but in the way that its big, complex and thoroughly mass produced where the previous motorsport flagship models were all somewhat rough edged and limited production, with a far more obvious presence of the human hand of the maker.

A C10 GT-R has that beautiful but fragile and hand built S20, tacked on afterthought guards etc, a HR31 GTS-R has styling thats at best functional, a massive mismatched turbo, handmade steel exhaust manifold; The BNR32 looks, drives and feels like it was built by massive computers and giant machines not fabricated by tradesmen.

Technically the end of the Showa era seemed to be a big step for all Nissans. A HR31 GTS-R has DNA and a quite surprising amount of straight fit parts compatibility, shared geometries and principles which reach back to the C10 Skylines. The R32s stepped into the new era with a completely fresh sheet with chassis design, complete powertrain redesign etc. In fact this even holds for other models; an S13 is a similar evolutionary step over the S12, and the S12 has close commonality with the S110 etc.

I think with the ideas and technology in play its a similar tour de force as the R32 was in technical terms but its not the big step in process and design philosophy the R32 was.

[racsov500]

some people in this thread seem to be thinking of the aus r31.. jap r31s had (all older and inferior versions of) ABS, HICAS, irs and heaps of fancy but pretty useless electrics such as adjustable shocks, motorized front spoiler, auto wipers and headlights to name a few things

Edited November 25, 2007 by racsov500

[Duncan]

well not really, as I said:

31:

strut front (like a commodore)

semi trailing arm rear (like a vw beetle/1600)

32:

double wishbones all around (like an f1 car)

don't get me wrong, I can't wait to get a v35 on the racetrack. I just think the 32 was a bigger deal when it was released, and there has been a lot of talk in here about the r35 as if it is the biggest thing nissan has ever released.

yes it will be great, and its been a hell of a wait. Its just not the same sort of leap.

[hrd-hr30]

there's also alot of talk here about it being up there with all sorts of supercars, but have a look at it objectively for a minute:

Ferrari's entry level car, the 430 has 490bhp and weighs 1350kg.

The R35 GTR has 480bhp and 1700kg. you do the math.

The awd system and DSG 'box make the GTR's 0-60 times look like supercar stuff, but lets see it haul its lard arse around a track againt the base model Ferrari. I know which car my money's on.

I'm sure the GTR is going to be a very good performance car and great value for money, but I think alot of people here are getting a bit carried away

[Dingus]

some people in this thread seem to be thinking of the aus r31.. jap r31s had (all older and inferior versions of) ABS, HICAS, irs and heaps of fancy but pretty useless electrics such as adjustable shocks, motorized front spoiler, auto wipers and headlights to name a few things

well not really, as I said:

31:

strut front (like a commodore)

semi trailing arm rear (like a vw beetle/1600)

Obviously you didn't read, you are thinking of the oz-spec, which were completely different to the jap HR31. Jap HR31, as racsov said, had IRS, ABS, HICAS, AutoSpoiler, and lots of other features. The one sold here lacked all of that, and was targetted at the commodore and falcon sort of range, not the more upperclass that it would have been if it included the sort of things the japs had.

[Adriano]

Obviously you didn't read, you are thinking of the oz-spec, which were completely different to the jap HR31. Jap HR31, as racsov said, had IRS, ABS, HICAS, AutoSpoiler, and lots of other features. The one sold here lacked all of that, and was targetted at the commodore and falcon sort of range, not the more upperclass that it would have been if it included the sort of things the japs had.

Obviously tou dont know what you are talking about, jap spec r31's have macpherson struts up front and semi trailing IRS rear, which is dreadful, camber change city. I dont understand why Nissan didnt fit 260z style rear suspension which offers far more traction

[racsov500]

yes imports have semi trailing arm irs which shit shit.. aussies have 4 link solid axle

[Beer Baron]

What's wrong with a transaxle? A lot of exotica (like the new Maserati Gransport) as well as race cars (including Nissan's championship winning JGTC R34 and FairladyZ cars) run transaxles, so it can't be that bad a thing.

This is a genuine question. I have no idea what the cons are for locating your gearbox back there (especially if you're running something fly-by-wire and so you don't get the vaguaries of running long and convoluted cables back there) so I'd appreciate the input.

he wasn't saying the transaxle is a negative he was saying: "they went to a transaxle to compensate for high curb weight and poor distribution which (the weight) is the only negative".

and funky. mid4 was a concept car with only one working prototype that I know of and never produced or sold. and bluebirds attesa was a fixed torque split 50/50 with a centre diff not a multi wet clutch electronically controlled transfer case... big difference. no other GTR had anything like the GTR attesa.

[madbung]

The R32 was revolutionary for Nissan and cars in general, it set so many benchmarks of the day in so many classes and at a budget price.

The r35 is the latest in this lines evolution...The basic format is the same just almost 20yrs difference in engineering.

So I'd say the 32 was a massive leap and the 35 is just the latest evolution of that leap.

The r32 really shocked old and young motor heads alike..I remember in my 20's thinking if only I had 120k i'd get me one of them thar scuderas after one blew by me in my 351c powered xt.

[funkymonkey]

multi wet clutch electronically controlled transfer case... big difference. no other GTR had anything like the GTR attesa.

even though lamborghini's ran a similar system a couple of years beforehand

[Beer Baron]

well yeah I never said no one had done it before. there have been quite a few cars from other makers that have had variable torque split AWD, but no other production nissans had had it. which is what I thought we were talking about?

[funkymonkey]

that's true... i was just reinforcing my point that nissan seems to make a habit of using the GTR to deliver technologies reserved exclusively to high end supercars of their time, in cheaper, mass produced packages.

[Beer Baron]

yeah I agree with that. they are crafty little buggers and don't mind ripping of good ideas from other marques. but it's not a bad idea. learn from other peoples hard work, steal a concept, improve it, and make it cheaper to boot.

[hrd-hr30]

even though lamborghini's ran a similar system a couple of years beforehand

I might be wrong but I thought their first awd was the Diablo, which was rwd until 1993. Not counting their off-road 4WD which used a conventional 2spd transfer case.

the couple of hundred Porsche 959s made in late87-early88 as a Broup B homologation run had a similar computer controlled multi plate variable awd system to the GTR, but it was tuned very differently.

[scathing]

he wasn't saying the transaxle is a negative he was saying: "they went to a transaxle to compensate for high curb weight and poor distribution which (the weight) is the only negative".

The total weight, I see, is a negative. "Having" to go to a transaxle to balance the weight distribution is, for me, not a negative.

Who says they "had to" go to a transaxle to balance the weight distribution? With the front engine platform decided, the aforementioned weight is in the front of the car (and is there any other item that goes into a chassis that weighs as much as an engine and the ancillaries that must sit near it?). Something has to go in the back to offset the weight of the engine.

What's to say that the use of a transaxle wasn't made early in the design phase and voluntarily (especially when an electronically operated gearbox was decided) to balance the weight, which gave the engineers more freedom with packaging everything else while retaining a near perfect weight distribution?

Edited November 27, 2007 by scathing

[Beer Baron]

he never said transaxle was a negative. no one has except you after misquoting someone. lol. he said the high weight and poor distribution was a negative. and that they switched to a rear mounted transaxle to combat this (not making any judgement on whether or not the transaxle is good or bad). read his post he said the weight is the ONLY negative. so how can he have been saying the transaxle is a negative too? ONLY.

[Ronin 09]

I pose another question -

the 32s are still taking it to a lot of new cars today (even stock as a rock), and in modified form will still run rings around 'sports' cars of today (admittedly things that don't matter, like fuel economy etc are discounted in the analysis)

Will the 35 still be competitive to new cars in 15 years time?

[sh@un]

32:

double wishbones all around (like an f1 car)

lol

'cept the wishbones aren't made out of carbon fiber composite, and the suspension isn't of the push-rod operated inboard variety- now that's how you get low unsprung mass

Ferrari's entry level car, the 430 has 490bhp and weighs 1350kg.

The R35 GTR has 480bhp and 1700kg. you do the math.

for an extra $280,000 over the GT-R, the Fezza would want to have something more than looks, sound and heritage to rely on

spend less than half that modifying the R35 and imagine what kind of weapon it would be

[scathing]

he said the high weight and poor distribution was a negative. and that they switched to a rear mounted transaxle to combat this (not making any judgement on whether or not the transaxle is good or bad). read his post he said the weight is the ONLY negative. so how can he have been saying the transaxle is a negative too? ONLY.

Read my last post again. After the clarification I wasn't said that he was saying the transaxle was a negative either. Nor was I disputing that the high total weight of the car was bad either. I'd concur that 1700kg is just stupidly high, not that GT-Rs always haven't been heavy for their age.

However, if you stick an engine somewhere that part of the car is going to weigh a shitload. Its not a negative of the GT-R, its basic physics. Now, if that location is the front of the car you need to stick something in the back to balance it out. Rather than a negative, why isn't the use of a transaxle considered a positive? Its a a cost-effective way of shifting some weight to the rear, low in the car to retain a low centre of gravity, and as SydneyKid says it brings engineering positives in terms of cooling to the table.

Since the car has an electronically operated clutch and gear selector, you don't lose "feel" that you would in a cable operated gearbox / clutch vs a more solid mechanical linkage. Rather than "having to switch" to a transaxle, why isn't it viewed as "finally being able to use a transaxle thanks to advances in technology and reductions in the cost of making them"? What I'm saying is that how do you know they haven't always wanted to use a transaxle, but haven't been able to until now?

[MK2]

AWD platform transaxel set ups aren't exactly unknown in the era of the R32GTR either, in Japanese performance cars.

Think in the end of the day, there's only so many ways to re-invent the wheel when it comes to cars most of it comes down to budget really. The fact you'll be getting an $80-100k car able to stick it to many cars twice it's price and scare the crap out of a couple which are three times or more, is testimony to mostly one thing.

"Just how much is a 'badge' going to cost you in some marques?"