Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

mmmm i wanna watch the superlap australia, theres 2 v8 supercar style cars and there's also a race done up r34, though not as epic as the super gt nissan gtr's i wonder how it'll go... there's also another like 4 32gtr's haha

Check this out - http://speedhunters.com/archive/2010/05/20...ession-one.aspx

These are the latest results from Superlap Australia @ Eastern Creek International Raceway in Sydney TODAY.

The Sierra Sierra Evo clocked a time of 1:32.2480.

Now the fastes ever lap time at Eastern Creek International Raceway in a V8 supercar was by Mark Skaife in a VT Commodore 1:31.7301.

The Hi-Octane R34 GTR is yet to set a lap time but my guess is it will be around the lap time of the Sierra Sierra Evo, if not a little slower due to traction issues.

Now if we look at this properly, the fastest lap time in a V8 supercar was set around ~10years ago, and the time-attack cars of today can not keep up with the V8 supercar's times.

That pretty much proves that a V8 Supercar would absolutely smash a GTR Skyline around a racetrack, regardless of whether its something small like Barbagello's of long and flowing like Bathurst!

Check this out - http://speedhunters.com/archive/2010/05/20...ession-one.aspx

These are the latest results from Superlap Australia @ Eastern Creek International Raceway in Sydney TODAY.

The Sierra Sierra Evo clocked a time of 1:32.2480.

Now the fastes ever lap time at Eastern Creek International Raceway in a V8 supercar was by Mark Skaife in a VT Commodore 1:31.7301.

The Hi-Octane R34 GTR is yet to set a lap time but my guess is it will be around the lap time of the Sierra Sierra Evo, if not a little slower due to traction issues.

Now if we look at this properly, the fastest lap time in a V8 supercar was set around ~10years ago, and the time-attack cars of today can not keep up with the V8 supercar's times.

That pretty much proves that a V8 Supercar would absolutely smash a GTR Skyline around a racetrack, regardless of whether its something small like Barbagello's of long and flowing like Bathurst!

.... and yet you missed the part where I said that the race prepped R32 GTR that skaife himself drove around bathurst, and drove again recently around bathurst, was only 3 seconds slower than the quallifying speeds of the V8 supercars of today. The car is 20 years old and STILL pretty much a match for the V8 supercars. Put that money into an 34R and I have no doubts that it would be closer.

Edited by stormtrooper

At the end of the day, the current V8 supercars will be faster than a car such as the Mines R34 GTR Skyline.

HOWEVER, I do agree that if a team with proper engineers and real funding was to spend as much time, money & testing on a GTR as the current teams do on their V8 Supercars, then yes i agree that a GTR would be a good match for the V8's.

Yeah, the comparison between the MINES GTR and the V8 was always going to fail, it has to be fully funded race prepped 34R vs fully race prepped V8 Supercar to be a proper comparison. However doesn't look like we'd be able to see them on a track together anytime soon :P Such a shame...

a good comparison is the GT3 porsche , i think this would be a similar lap time to a full on GTR 34 given the r35 is slightly faster than a GT3, is this a fair comment . GT3 best lap can do a lap of Mallala in 1.14 secs and greg murphy commodore v8 supercar in 1.08 .

  • 2 months later...

I was at the Eastern Creek World Time Attack, there was the High Octane R34 GTR that did a lap time of 1:34.1090 and a Mal Rose Racing Holden Commodore with a lap time of 1:39.3230.

Fair to say both cars were in the same pro class with a 5secs difference, so I would naturally think a modified R34 GTR is a faster car around a track than a modifed V8 Holden.

I have not mentioned the CyberEvo present at the event took the 1st place with a lap time of 1:30.5870, could potentially done a 1:29 but did not due to near blown engine which they tried to fix overnight nonetheless still managed to win the pro class event.

Not sure if you guys know, but the CyberEvo does laps around Tsukuba track in Japan in the 54secs range similar to that of the MSpeed R34 GTR, so we can pretty much use the CyberEvo lap times around Eastern Creek and compare that to the Mal Rose Holden Commodore, meaning a near 9 seconds difference.

Stock R34 GTR vs V8 Supercar, thats not even fair to even compare.

Modified R34 GTR vs Modified V8 Holden, as above R34 GTR clearly is faster.

GT500 R34 GTR vs V8 Supercar, I wouldn't have a clue but my money is on the GT500 R34 GTR

Edited by NG11

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...