Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

maybe but it would be a bitch to live with on the street... Nissan have done it all with the new car, made it super quick and by all reports a pleasure to drive down the shops for milk and bread... the fact that it can do what it can do with its extra weight and everyday drivability just goes to show what a technical marvel it is and just how far ahead of the 34 it really is... just wait for the lightweight versions that are sure to come out

sure my 33GTR can probably run with a 35 in a straight line but its gutless down low, got a tricky clutch, tramlines all over the shop etc etc... if Nissan wanted too they could have made a car that was even quicker than the new 35 but that's not the point... the car they made is an all rounder and at a price that makes the euros cry into their lattes

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Everybody is saying that its light years ahead of any other previous GT-R - OK, gimme 170K, and I reckon that I could buy and make the R34 GT-R V-Spec II Nur annihilate any R35 GT-R, modded or not.

Seriously people - with R35 extra weight I do believe that lighter, modded R34 would be better.

Then of course, you have to look at the cost to modd the R35 - 20K, 50K, where is the limit. So you will end up with the 250K car, and I do reckon that a tuned R34 would still be better - 200kg less weight in stock trim is alot of weight to carry through corners.

You think for 170k that you could make a R34 Nur annihilate the R35...modded or not....I guess we are just lucky you will never have 170k to spend on a car then aren't we.

Phew for a second we almost lived in the real world.

Using that logic I could probably spend 170k on the clubman track car and beat that 34 nur with 170k worth of mods which beat that 35 gtr and so on... still doesn't prove anything.

You think for 170k that you could make a R34 Nur annihilate the R35...modded or not....I guess we are just lucky you will never have 170k to spend on a car then aren't we.

Phew for a second we almost lived in the real world.

Maybe, maybe never - but Jeff just because you are some rich, arrogant cocksucker that can afford to buy a 170K car it doesn't mean we should take your opinions as 2 cents worth.

I know that almost every track day I go to, there is a little clubman there that hands me my ass everytime....down the straight I smash him but through the corners he just gobbles me up.

Maybe you should learn how to drive.

Maybe, maybe never - but Jeff just because you are some rich, arrogant cocksucker that can afford to buy a 170K car it doesn't mean we should take your opinions as 2 cents worth.

ZINGGGGGGG!!!!!!

No need to get offensive because someone doesn't share the same opinion as you. People get old, as does technology. The new GTR has had such a long time to develop into something that is really ahead of the times (much like the original R32 GTR).

Anyway, I love my out of date R33 GTR, and if I had $150k I would buy a new GTR (and keep the old girl too).

Mike

I thought the test was unfair due to the different cars running all different types of tyres which would have affected the outcome to an extent.

Its not suprising that the 35 GTR was quicker by so much. Nissan left the gap between the R34 and this current machine too long, there should have been another GTR to slot between then. They try to compare this new one with the old cars and it makes a mockery of them.

The 34 only weighs a bit less than the 35 and has only 206-220 odd kw at the flywheel with a 2.6 liter straight 6. The new car has 3.8 liters, double the flywheel ower, bigger turbochargers and a smarter electronics system - its really not even worth a comparison.

Yeah true, they should compare the R35 to the z tune!

Maybe, maybe never - but Jeff just because you are some rich, arrogant cocksucker that can afford to buy a 170K car it doesn't mean we should take your opinions as 2 cents worth.

Rehab as its been pointed out it's always the people who have never driven/owned an R35 that are the ones to criticise it. I think if you do a search and read some of Gibo's other posts you would be hard pressed to call him arrogant. If you are going to come on here and start flaming R35's with quote's that your R32/33/34 will go faster then be prepared to back it up. If not you're wasting everyone's time with post's like the above.

To each his own, i guess you'll label me as an arrogant c*#ksucker as well.

Slip.

Timeslips and lap time databases please ladies ;)

I have a Drfitbox timed 1:16.2 at Mallala last outing in a stock Dunlop tyred R35 GTR daily. Please show me a Skyline of any R32 - R34 vintage that can stick with that, regardless of modifications and money spent....other than Gibson and Skaife/Richards, it aint been done fellas ;)

Keyboards are NOT faster than real cars :)

Edited by Martin Donnon
Rehab as its been pointed out it's always the people who have never driven/owned an R35 that are the ones to criticise it. I think if you do a search and read some of Gibo's other posts you would be hard pressed to call him arrogant. If you are going to come on here and start flaming R35's with quote's that your R32/33/34 will go faster then be prepared to back it up. If not you're wasting everyone's time with post's like the above.

To each his own, i guess you'll label me as an arrogant c*#ksucker as well.

Slip.

If he is gonna put me down just because I currently cannot afford the R35 then he is an arrogant c#ck.

Guess for people like Gibbo its all about how much money you got, that is the only reason I took an offence to his post.

I'm not here to flame the R35, nor to insult other forum members, and that is a fact.

‚ÉŒ©‚È‚B ‚±‚±‚É"úꂱ‚ê‚Í"ñí‚É‚Ü‚ü'P‚ÈŽÔ‚Å‚ ‚éí‚É‚«‚ê‚¢‚ÅA—DG‚È‚æ‚¢ó'Ô‚¨‚æ‚Ñ•—‰ë‚ȉü'P‚ÉŒ©‚È‚B ‚±‚±‚É"ú–{‚ÅB "ñ³‚¢B Å‚à‚æ‚¢Ž„‚Í'·‚¢ŠÔŒ©‚Ä‚µ‚Ü‚Á‚½B

Edited by Makihiko

I reckon a well modded/lightweight R32~R34 (in the right hands - not mine!) will be faster than a stocker 35. It should be. Do serious mods the an R35 and things might be different. Sure you can go down the road of comparing a $150k new car to something which has almost depreciated to the point of a nothing - then gut that beast and apply serious mods / dollars. Makes for interesting reading but hardly fair or useful when arguing the merits of how good each of the respective STOCKER products were new.

Here's a stupid argument: How much was a new R32 in todays money? The were $130k or thereabouts new right? How much is that equivalent to today? $200k, $300k??.. And how much can you pick one up for today (shitty clunker to rebuild say) & why do i ask? Think about how much has been sunk in depreciation on that R32, $150k ~ $200k ~ $300k? Ok... so go and spend that AGAIN on serious mods (as someone suggested) how much has been spent on the LIFE of the car to finally arrive at this R35 smashing point? ... $300k+ Jeez man, what a waste, the total collective spend on that car was $300k merely so you can go as fast as a $150k stocker. I know i know... stupid argument. But probably no more silly vs comparing 20 year old race car prepped R32's or whatever to a modern & comfy production car today.

Maybe, maybe never - but Jeff just because you are some rich, arrogant cocksucker that can afford to buy a 170K car it doesn't mean we should take your opinions as 2 cents worth.

Rehab,

You are half right....I don't suck cock.

Arrogant...maybe... I can live with that, but it is easy to cut down someone who has what you don't, blame the world for it.....it is everyone else fault. The post wasn't supposed to target the nerve that I hit, it was more a comment on people that speculate on what they could do with the money if they had it, however in the real world when you have the 170k to spend on a car it is very very few people who buy a second hand 80k car (Like the GTR Nur) and then pump 100k into improving it. The dig was not into what you have or don't have, it was into the real world facts of what you would actually do with the 170k if you had it.

Hell you could built a 120Y datsun for under 60k that would clean up an R35 on the track, the clubman is a perfect example of a car you can get for under 30k that cleans the R35 up on a track like eastern creek. I would welcome you to venture to a track day and see what is out there.

It is easy to sit behind a keyboard and tell me that I am arrogant, tell me that I can't drive etc etc, however the fact is you don't know me, it seems you draw opinions on people like you do on your cars....uninformed.

The dig was not at your wealth, or what you do or don't have, it was on the real world fact that sitting and typing what you would do with 170k is completely different to what you would do if you actually had it.

If the R35 wasn't light years ahead of the R32-R34 cars then I'd be VERY dissapointed considering the basic design of the R32-34 dates back to the late 80's.

With the R35 we're talking about Nissan's state of the art technology. The cars aren't really comparable on any account other than they are all GTR's. Motor (as well as many on here apparently) have forgotten this.

Oh and let's cut back on the tall poppy syndrome.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...