Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My N13 poosar would own both!!! HAHA Jokes Jokes! Defiantly the GTR over the SV8, My dad had a SV8 and it was a slug, and ive been in mates GTR and its stock and would totaly own!

Edited by SN1P3R
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 year later...

Was at a track day bout 5 years ago...was a purple 33GTR , fairly well modded for the street and a Ex perkins supercar..VR...It shat all over the 33...Its a prepped race car of course it will...They wouldnt let them on the track at the same time...

Seeing as this has been dragged back up I had a look at some numbers.

V8 Super Car

620 - 650 BHP

460 ft/lbs

1355 KG

Mines R34 GTR

580 - 600 BHP

432 ft/lbs

1540 KG *

* I couldn't find a proper weight value for the Mines GTR, so I used the numbers from the N1 R34 GTR Nur VSpec II because the Mines GTR doesn't really seem to have much in the way of weight saving parts beyond some carbon fibre aero parts.

So, while I'd love for the GTR to be faster, there's really no way. Unless maybe it was pissing down with rain and they were both on the same race tyre -- even then it's a long shot.

i asked this question before i found out about the SuperGT cars, i think it would be more fair to compare the V8 supercars to them instead of tuning companies like Mines, MCR, HKS, etc.

also tsuchiya said the Mine's car has the acceleration of a GT500 class car

Edited by R34P3R

However you guys are talking about then and now. Recently in a wheels/motor mag, can't remember it's at home, Skaife drove the same 32R around bathurst that he drove in the 90's that now belongs to a collector. And, it was only 3 seconds slower than what the V8 supercars of TODAY manage during quallifying/shootouts. My money is on the GTR of today with the same amount of money put into it as a V8 supercar of today. Enough said.

Besides, I am yet to see any GTR get close to 298kph down conrod... :D

The R32 GTR's were getting close to 290km/h down conrod straight in 1992...

Look at it this way - the V8 supercars are the same as GTR's in Japan's current super GT series. Nothing is the same between the road going version and the race version other than the roof, and that has been proven.

A current spec V8 supercar would smash something like the road going Mine's R34 GTR.

However if you put a current spec V8 supercar up against a current spec Super GT GTR then we would have an interesting battle. Both V8's, both RWD, roughly the same HP, etc.

Anyone heard of FARTs, came across an article in one of the ZOOM mags

Federation Against Rotaries and Turbo's

haha apparently was a bunch some time ago that werent too happy seeing they're v8's getting mopped up by Nissan's and Mazda's

and yeh the V8 supercar would win i think, because its a dedicated race car, the Mine's R34 GTR isnt.

no doubt a fully blown race spec R34 GTR would destroy any fully blown race spec falcodore.

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...