Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

PINGPINGPINGPINGs ~!!!

lol how can you question an official statement from nissan ? fair enough its not gospel but they have a lot to lose from lying lol. I'm sure they wouldnt want to give anybody anything to say bad about the GTR by lying

I dunno, I'll cop a lot of flack over this but 7:29 sounds a little too fast to be realistic. Remember the R33 breaking the 8 minute mark and then no one else being able to match the time? I just can't see the the R35 doing the 'ring that fast.

***PUTS ON FLAME SHIELD***

From what I understand the track conditions were improved compared to the 7'38" run the last time they were testing at the track.

Apparently, Mizuno is also engaged in continuous quality improvement on this car, re: performance attributes. This is definitely a good thing.

All further JDM and all US spec GT-Rs are getting different motor mounts with different bushings; I expect polyurethane leading to the 'claim' of harder engine mounts. There is also a harder transaxle bushing. The statement reads that these "small tweaks ...... stop the mechancial parts from moving under extreme cornering. It's detail like this that enabled the new 7 min 29sec... (Mizuno)". Also: "The new mounts make the car feel more together in extreme circumstances,' he said. 'We've also changed the spring rates front and rear – it's a minute change, they're just 0.1kg/sq mm stiffer. But it means the movement of the suspension and powertrain are more perfectly tuned."

So it looks like they have made some small adjustments to handling characteristics; and they don't look very expensive either. I am sure the original JDMs can probably be retrofitted / adjsuted with these pieces pretty easily.

thats a terrific effort, cant believe it, i was bragging to guys about the 7:38... The v-spec is gonna be wicked!

There probably will be a few bling pieces associated with Spec V, but...

The weight reduction is primarily through greater use of carbon fiber panels and light-weight race seats. These can likely be purchased after-market from Nissan or other. If people are going to autocross or track the car, then they will likely start pulling interior pieces out anyways, place a 5 or 6 point cage, and use race-spec seats anyways.

The engine tweaks can easily be done through the ECU. Cobb looks like there mapping method will be ideal for doing ECU modifications and keeping the Nissan maintenance coverage because the ECU can be flashed back to OEM (purportedly). It looks like the OEM transmission should be able to handle 600 ft/lb TQ pretty easily with little or no modification to the engine, just a tune.

If your racing the GT-R, your going to be replacing the clutches and a differential from time to time anyways. And lots of tiresbiggrin.gif

Carbon-ceramics are really only needed for race applications or if you are hot-lapping at the dragstrip. And who does that!!??*&! rolleyes.gif Although honestly, I have seen two after-market vendors are offering the same or similar brake pads (i.e. carbon ceramics) for significantly less than OEM.

I'd rather get the base model and make the journey myself. Hell, you can adjust boost to 1 bar (14.5 psi), do nominal weight reduction (e.g. get rid of the complimentary tools under the mat, lose the weight of 11 speakers), and swap some bushings and easily run high 10second 1/4 mile times.

aslong as they use the same start finnish line as lemans used to I will call it a mark... start finnish on the whip end of the straight after the first 'corner' isnt fair.

aslong as they use the same start finnish line as lemans used to I will call it a mark... start finnish on the whip end of the straight after the first 'corner' isnt fair.

I'm confused mate, what do you mean "same start finish line as Le Mans"? It's a different circuit?

Phoenix, i assume you've popped over from NAGTROC?

looks like you've got some good solid info there, where bouts did you come across it all?

Not from NAGTROC.

Yes, I have done some research. I enjoy the journey of building very fast street-legal cars, but I really have just looked at all the vendors in Japan and seen what they have posted over the past year. I have seen a ceiling on the clutch packs. I am not entirely clear on what the engine can handle at the limits, but 600 - 615 ft/lb TQ at the crank is probably all I will need to accomplish my goals. I want the car to have some longevity too.

I prefer science over guessing. I plan on making this car run a 10.8 - 10.9 second 1/4 mile on street tires, maybe some sticky R compound BFG drag radials, if needed.

This is a quote from a post I made in the British forum.

This is theory. I used very few data points and 3 variables. I considered atmospheric pressure a constant, if you will, because I don't have enough dyno variable sets to incorporate into an equation. [please explain how to use 1.01 in this formula...multiply or dividethumbsup.gif ) This is a RATIO / PROPORTION grid with a couple conversions. I had 2 data points with which to compare with the factory numbers. Not much to go on. When you consider that different types of dynos (dynapack / mustang & dynojet) are being used at different elevations, yeah sure, it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Plus, people use different octane fuels and measure crank vs. wheel with the other confounding factor of what to use for drivetrain loss (15 - 25%). One other thing, Nissan obviously, did not provide the ideal baseline to work from, because most consumer cars are showing around 435 HP to the wheels. Even with a conservative 'drive-train' loss of 15%, your over 500 HP to the crank.

Additionally, the 'load-type' dyno (mustang / dynapack) requires accurate on-road aerodynamics and friction inputs and the 'inertia type' (dynojet) does not. I think the 'load-type' dynos are GAY, sorry, my personal opinion. I much prefer the dynojet for higher HP applications. Most tuners use the dynapack for comparing baseline (prior to modification) numbers to engine mod; it is fine for looking at change. Dyno jet will give a much closer real-world number.

In terms of the theoretical number projections, this is what I posted originally:

Boost TQ (to the crank)

(bar / psi) lb - ft

0.7 / 10.2 433

0.9 / 13 551

1 / 14.5 618.6

Motor Trend (K+N engineering)

Wheel 430.6 - 435.8 HP, 425.3 - 439.1 lb/ft (range of results)

Projected Crank @ 15% drivetrain loss 506.5 HP / 500.4 TQ

Motor Authority (Dynapack)

475 HP / 428 lb/ft TQ to hub

projected crank 550 HP, 495 lb/ft TQ

Autoblog (Mustang and Dynagay)

406 HP / 414 TQ (Mustang)

452 HP / 448 TQ (Dynapack)

BEST CAR Magazine (JDM [consumer])(Dynapack)

485.665 HP / 428/1 lb/ft TQ (hub)

BP car (running 95-96 US octane rating)

457.7 HP / 444 lb/ft TQ (wheel)

520.5 HP (projected crank)

JSpec Connect (Dynapack)

460 HP, 456 lb/ft (hub)

I believe there is a general consensus that the power of the engine has been under-reported for whatever reason. The numbers given by the factory are probably more accurate (with a proportion given to drivetrain loss) as being wheel horsepower rather than crank horsepower. That is why the numbers seem skewed. Give me better data points, I'll give you better projections.

Conclusions: I don't think it is unrealistic at all for the stock components to give between 550 - 600 ft/lb of TQ (to the wheels) as you approach the drivetrain limits (as given by MCR and Endless) of ~ 14 - 16 psi on the turbo. Heat and efficiency limits considered. And of course, they probably beat the piss out of the car as well.

aslong as they use the same start finnish line as lemans used to I will call it a mark... start finnish on the whip end of the straight after the first 'corner' isnt fair.

The timing method is standardised by Sport Auto magazine and has become the defacto standard for Nurburgring timing across the board and has been adopted by almost all manufacturers.

The start/finish line is no longer used for timing because it is dangerous. The Nurburgring is a public road and cars are constantly entering the track from that area. If you're going all out on a flying lap you're likely to crash into someone at that point.

The timing method is standardised by Sport Auto magazine and has become the defacto standard for Nurburgring timing across the board and has been adopted by almost all manufacturers.

exactly

regardless of where the 'proper' start/finish point is, the time Nissan quotes is using beginning and end points consistent with all recent times recorded for other supercars

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

    • Jdm DC2R is also nice for a FF car compared to the regular hatches of the time.
    • Now that the break-in period for both clutch and transmission is nearly over I'd like to give some tips before I forget about everything that happened, also for anyone searching up how to do this job in the future: You will need at least 6 ton jack stands at full extension. I would go as far as to say maybe consider 12 ton jack stands because the height of the transmission + the Harbor Freight hydraulic platform-style transmission jack was enough that it was an absolute PITA getting the transmission out from under the car and back in. The top edge of the bellhousing wants to contact the subframe and oil pan and if you're doing this on the floor forget about trying to lift this transmission off the ground and onto a transmission jack from under the car. Also do not try to use a scissor jack transmission lift. You have to rotate the damn thing in-place on the transmission jack which is hard enough with an adjustable platform and a transmission cradle that will mostly keep the transmission from rolling off the jack but on a scissor lift with a tiny non-adjustable platform? Forget it. Use penetrating oil on the driveshaft bolts. I highly recommend getting a thin 6 point combination (box end + open end) wrench for both the rear driveshaft and front driveshaft and a wrench extension. These bolts are on tight with very little space to work with and those two things together made a massive difference. Even a high torque impact wrench is just the wrong tool for the job here and didn't do what I needed it to do. If your starter bolts aren't seized in place for whatever reason you can in fact snake in a 3/8 inch ratchet + 6 point standard chrome socket up in there and "just" remove the bolts for the starter. Or at least I could. It is entirely by feel, you can barely fit it in, you can barely turn the stupid ratchet, but it is possible. Pull the front pipe/downpipe before you attempt to remove the transmission. In theory you don't have to, in practice just do it.  When pulling the transmission on the way out you don't have to undo all the bolts holding the rear driveshaft to the chassis like the center support bearing and the rear tunnel reinforcement bar but putting the transmission back in I highly recommend doing this because it will let you raise the transmission without constantly dealing with the driveshaft interfering in one way or another. I undid the bottom of the engine mount but I honestly don't know that it helped anything. If you do this make sure you put a towel on the back of the valve cover to keep the engine from smashing all the pipes on the firewall. Once the transmission has been pulled back far enough to clear the dowels you need to twist it in place clockwise if you're sitting behind the transmission. This will rotate the starter down towards the ground. The starter bump seems like it might clear if you twist the transmission the other way but it definitely won't. I have scraped the shit out of my transmission tunnel trying so learn from my mistake. You will need a center punch and an appropriate size drill bit and screw to pull the rear main seal. Then use vice grips and preferably a slide hammer attachment for those vice grips to yank the seal out. Do not let the drill or screw contact any part of the crank and clean the engine carefully after removing the seal to avoid getting metal fragments into the engine. I used a Slide Hammer and Bearing Puller Set, 5 Piece from Harbor Freight to pull the old pilot bearing. The "wet paper towel" trick sucked and just got dirty clutch water everywhere. Buy the tool or borrow it from a friend and save yourself the pain. It comes right out. Mine was very worn compared to the new one and it was starting to show cracks. Soak it in engine oil for a day in case yours has lost all of the oil to the plastic bag it comes in. You may be tempted to get the Nismo aftermarket pilot bearing but local mechanics have told me that they fail prematurely and if they do fail they do far more damage than a failed OEM pilot bushing. I mentioned this before but the Super Coppermix Twin clutch friction disks are in fact directional. The subtle coning of the fingers in both cases should be facing towards the center of the hub. So the coning on the rearmost disk closest to the pressure plate should go towards the engine, and the one closest to the flywheel should be flipped the other way. Otherwise when you torque down the pressure plate it will be warped and if you attempt to drive it like this it will make a very nasty grinding noise. Also, there is in fact an orientation to the washers for the pressure plate if you don't want to damage the anodizing. Rounded side of the washer faces the pressure plate. The flat side faces the bolt head. Pulling the transmission from the transfer case you need to be extremely careful with the shift cover plate. This part is discontinued. Try your best to avoid damaging the mating surfaces or breaking the pry points. I used a dead blow rubber hammer after removing the bolts to smack it sideways to slide it off the RTV the previous mechanic applied. I recommend using gasket dressing on the OEM paper gasket to try and keep the ATF from leaking out of that surface which seems to be a perpetual problem. Undoing the shifter rod end is an absolute PITA. Get a set of roll pin punches. Those are mandatory for this. Also I strongly, strongly recommend getting a palm nailer that will fit your roll pin punch. Also, put a clean (emphasis on clean) towel wrapped around the back end of the roll pin to keep it from shooting into the transfer case so you can spend a good hour or two with a magnet on a stick getting it out. Do not damage the shifter rod end either because those are discontinued as well. Do not use aftermarket flywheel bolts. Or if you do, make sure they are exactly the same dimensions as OEM before you go to install them. I have seen people mention that they got the wrong bolts and it meant having to do the job again. High torque impact wrench makes removal easy. I used some combination of a pry bar and flathead screwdriver to keep the flywheel from turning but consider just buying a proper flywheel lock instead. Just buy the OS Giken clutch alignment tool from RHDJapan. I hated the plastic alignment tool and you will never be confident this thing will work as intended. Don't forget to install the Nismo provided clutch fork boot. Otherwise it will make unearthly noises when you press the clutch pedal as it says on the little installation sheet in Japanese. Also, on both initial disassembly and assembly you must follow torque sequence for the pressure plate bolts. For some reason the Nismo directions tell you to put in the smaller 3 bolts last. I would not do this. Fully insert and thread those bolts to the end first, then tighten the other larger pressure plate bolts according to torque sequence. Then at the end you can also torque these 3 smaller bolts. Doing it the other way can cause these bolts to bind and the whole thing won't fit as it should. Hope this helps someone out there.
    • Every one has seemed to of have missed . . . . . . . The Mazda Cosmo . . . . . . what a MACHINE ! !
×
×
  • Create New...