Motor Magazine Aussie R-35 Test

[sh@un]

^ that will be mated to a chassis that can actually cope with the power

[sewid]

imo the way they should've "compared" the GTRs was to find volunteers who are good drivers who have seriously modded their own 32/33/34 gtrs, brought them out to the track for a day and let them go for it. after a day of racing as it were obtain the best results for the 32/33/34 & 35 GTRs and compare...

bet the results would have been different...

Except that had already been done in Japan and the results were different but not by as much as you think they would be.

Big woop a modified car that's faster than a standard car... that proves precisely nothing.

[sh@un]

exactly

even finding the best examples of all previous factory spec GT-R's, the R35 will be quicker around any given track

[gunns]

Haha you know whats funny, my dad bought that white r33 gtr vspec shown in thsi test from fabcar...

its a bloody sweet car

[ras1983]

has he changed the tyres?

[gts-4 dreamer]

This ... is ... oddly ... painful ... agreeing ... and ... not ... arguing ... with ... scathing.

Are you guys just completely blinded.... the thing about gtr(s)... They were RelativelY cheap for the performance... they got that performance from thier "newer, better" tech.. now... lets stick with the old tech because why? its heavy and old... but atleast it made less power....?

The r35 looked at from the point of view of another evolution of the GTR is an improvement in almost every way... except as the same with all the evolutions so far.. is heavier to comply with new standards and "cleaner" well... same thing yea? all gtrs are a bit heavy anyways.... ask any owner punting their car through a corner at any speed.

the r35 isnt good enough because?

better weight distribution? anyone gone to check the balance?

better power delivery.

hopefully better torque distribution controller logic but looks to similar.

better gear shift? downshift is better than allot of dsg lookalikes i've seen.

better suspension.

better braking capabilities.

better 0-100-0 times?

screw the old cast iron rb..... bring on the lighter more compact vr... cant wait to see a higher reving version released by nismo.

Edited May 8, 2008 by gts-4 dreamer

[gunns]

has he changed the tyres?

Nah he hasnt, i think he wants to put michelin's on it in the near future, or continentals...

he's only using it as a family car, its been a thing he's always wanted to buy.

He wants to keep it stock, bar putting on a a gtr steering wheel, changing the worn leather gear knob and also put ball-bearing turbo's instead of ceramic's...

Edited May 8, 2008 by gunns

[Brockas]

so wat happened with the gt3

You can guess.

Result:

R35 > GT3

[R338OY]

This ... is ... oddly ... painful ... agreeing ... and ... not ... arguing ... with ... scathing.

Are you guys just completely blinded.... the thing about gtr(s)... They were RelativelY cheap for the performance... they got that performance from thier "newer, better" tech.. now... lets stick with the old tech because why? its heavy and old... but atleast it made less power....?

The r35 looked at from the point of view of another evolution of the GTR is an improvement in almost every way... except as the same with all the evolutions so far.. is heavier to comply with new standards and "cleaner" well... same thing yea? all gtrs are a bit heavy anyways.... ask any owner punting their car through a corner at any speed.

the r35 isnt good enough because?

better weight distribution? anyone gone to check the balance?

better power delivery.

hopefully better torque distribution controller logic but looks to similar.

better gear shift? downshift is better than allot of dsg lookalikes i've seen.

better suspension.

better braking capabilities.

better 0-100-0 times?

screw the old cast iron rb..... bring on the lighter more compact vr... cant wait to see a higher reving version released by nismo.

Yes the R35 is a big step up from the old GTR's. Highly modified GTR's (costing about the same as an R35 in total) wouldn't be far behind re performance, but tech-wise the R35 blasts away.

A big difference i find is the old GTR's are like a platform upon which boundless kW can be extracted. That makes it really exciting, like opening up a massive easter egg with little wastegates rattling inside.

The R35, from the reports, appears to be an awesome purpose built sports car but without the strength to be pushed 50-60% harder (like 32/3/4's).

So in that sense it's becoming an 'owners' car, if you will, rather than a modifier's car. It's so great (and pushed closer to it's mechanical limits) compared to yester-gears GTR's that it can't really have too much modifying done (without re-engineering the manifolds/head/block/rotating assembly/tranny etc.).

It's already so well honed and balanced it bores me.

Edited May 8, 2008 by R338OY

[sh@un]

A big difference i find is the old GTR's are like a platform upon which boundless kW can be extracted. That makes it really exciting, like opening up a massive easter egg with little wastegates rattling inside.

just imagine the amount of power R35's will be making in another few months time after the ECU upgrades start coming through

big power is fine for going fast in a straight line, but enjoyable driving in real-world conditions requires good tractability and throttle adjustability in corners (unlike the light-switch style power delivery of big rwkW 32/3/4/ GT-Rs)

the whole point with the R35 is that it feels nice and strong through most of the rev range... not 3500~4000rpm of torquelessness like you get with RB26's

[madbung]

Comparisions should be stock v stock then worked v worked.

You can't compare apples with oranges and to suggest you can is rediculous.

Either way stock v stock or worked v worked the r35 people mover will still come out ontop.

Why? simply it has newer, better technology...... with any luck this new platform(like the old one) will be re-bodied & tweaked for a few models to come for us all to enjoy @ some stage.

[sh@un]

inevitable really- when the R39 is powered by a compact nuclear reactor, we'll all look at the people feeding R35s petrol for $4.50 a litre and laugh

[cowie165]

inevitable really- when the R39 is powered by a compact nuclear reactor, we'll all look at the people feeding R35s petrol for $4.50 a litre and laugh

lmao

[saliya]

no need

the black Hi-Octane R32, that has been modified in pretty much every way imaginable and extensively lightened, ran 59 seconds at Tsukuba. a standard R35 on run-flat tires ran a 1min 3sec.

erm; not to say that the new GTR is a POS but 4 seconds a lap on a 1 min circuit is having

bits of your anatomy that you might choose to sit on handed to you. They're not even "close"

times. Half a second would be "close"...

Regards,

Saliya

[madbung]

erm; not to say that the new GTR is a POS but 4 seconds a lap on a 1 min circuit is having

bits of your anatomy that you might choose to sit on handed to you. They're not even "close"

times. Half a second would be "close"...

Regards,

Saliya

Erm...what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

But gee that'd also be a pointless comparision wouldn't it?

[saliya]

Erm...what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

But gee that'd also be a pointless comparision wouldn't it?

FFS, the difference is irrelevant: yes, it would be a pointless comparison.

The gist of the post I quoted was "an R35 is as good as an extensively-modified R32 because the R35 is 'only' 4 sec slower"

4 sec is a large-enough margin on a 1-min circuit to refute that. After 15 laps, or 15 minutes of racing,the R35 is lapped.

Clearly, then, it's not as good as an extensively-modified R32 (or whatever other thing runs sub-1-min times, there are a few).

Nothing to do with the level of modification, or stock-vs-stock, or modified-vs-modified

(though I can see from your previous posts that you think this is important).

Just to do with "those times aren't really in the same ballpark".

Does anybody seriously think that a stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 ? I don't think so.

Regards,

Saliya

[madbung]

FFS, the difference is irrelevant: yes, it would be a pointless comparison.

The gist of the post I quoted was "an R35 is as good as an extensively-modified R32 because the R35 is 'only' 4 sec slower"

4 sec is a large-enough margin on a 1-min circuit to refute that. After 15 laps, or 15 minutes of racing,the R35 is lapped.

Clearly, then, it's not as good as an extensively-modified R32 (or whatever other thing runs sub-1-min times, there are a few).

Nothing to do with the level of modification, or stock-vs-stock, or modified-vs-modified

(though I can see from your previous posts that you think this is important).

Just to do with "those times aren't really in the same ballpark".

Does anybody seriously think that a stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 ? I don't think so.

Regards,

Saliya

No...no...no

If you'd be good enough to re-read the post you are quoting me on now, you'd see I said "what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

Which I believe is as relative as the r35 v black Hi-Octane R32 comparison.

Nothing to do with "stock R32/33/34 GTR would hold their own with an R35 "

We could compare any of the r35's running around in superGT atm to the black Hi-Octane R32 and see what happens...but hey that'd be ridiculous also would it not?

The stock for stock comparison is far fairer comparison re: 90's technology v current technology...get it yet? It's a comparison between 2 benchmark cars for their time that share the same linage, not a RACE

I can't help it if you own an r32 GTR and feel you need to defend it's reputation against it's bigger brother to the death, I don't get it!

black Hi-Octane R32 is a highly developed car with the latest and best available and sure a hell isn't running 1990's technology...so?

The point was mute at every level wasn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of the gtr's are lesser than the other, each was an evolution of it's older brother, an absolute monster of it's day and has blown my mind with every step.

If you don't compare stock for stock how can you gauge the cars development over it's model run?

Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless.

[saliya]

No...no...no

If you'd be good enough to re-read the post you are quoting me on now, you'd see I said "what do you think the difference between a bog stock r32 gtr and the black Hi-Octane R32 would be per lap??

*Hazards a guess it'd be a shitload more than 4 second.

Which I believe is as relative as the r35 v black Hi-Octane R32 comparison.

Not sure what your point is. A comparison between car C and car A has nothing to do with the comparison between car A and car B.

Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless.

... Aaaaaaanyway, to save time, I'm invoking Godwin's law right now and I bow out of further discussion on this point

Regards,

Saliya

[madbung]

Haha groovy......probably wise

Or you could pull out somemore unrelated quotes, take them out of the context of the post and misinterpret them again.

Either way Uncontrolled, random, meaningless....pointless. Indeed

[scathing]

... Aaaaaaanyway, to save time, I'm invoking Godwin's law right now

I'm quite curious to see, in a thread about different models of GT-R, how you're going to compare one of the cars or one of the people here to Adolf Hitler.