Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Having driven all of the cars in that picture(yes I am gloating)....The Winfield R32 without a doubt.

But I still love the R31 for the excitement!!

Having driven the GMS R31 in front of a crowds ( although usually jumping the start ), I'm surprised your head fits in any of the other cars :P

I'd have to take NEWGTR. Clearly it's driven by someone who can't park, and the car deserves better than that :)

lol @ fatz

For a lap round the track I'd take the R32 in less than a heartbeat, and it would come back with bald tyres and no fuel.

:):)

Yes, R32...

despite the fact that one of my patients who'd just become a non-smoker said,

"You must be the cigarette company's worst enemy!" :D

Having driven the GMS R31 in front of a crowds ( although usually jumping the start ), I'm surprised your head fits in any of the other cars :)

hmmm....i have nothing! next time me see's you i'll have something for you though.

Note to myself - Get Hooker to give me some weapons training :) .....I already know how to do the running thing.

Having driven all of the cars in that picture(yes I am gloating)....The Winfield R32 without a doubt.

But I still love the R31 for the excitement!!

Its a bit hard to tell from videos etc, but would you mind describing what its like to drive/steer? :D

Its a bit hard to tell from videos etc, but would you mind describing what its like to drive/steer? :D

GMS R31: I can push this car car to the limit and feel comfortable with the response given through the chassis in either understeer or oversteer....not meaning that it's faster just more forgiving at the limit than the R32.

GMS R32: Considering I have only done about 40 laps with it at pace the only feedback that I can give is that to take up to the 85% margin it was very easy to drive....no loss of grip and heaps of low down grunt. Beyond that you would have to have a bit more time in the car...it would be very easy to put on the roof. I also didn't find it that much quicker in a straight line than the R31, but the grip coming out of the corners was awesome. Power steering and sync box made it easy to drive as well.....but you do feel the weight.

Maybe I'm old school but I still love the R31.....I just think I could get much more out of it at the limit....not saying I would be quicker....just the fun factor would be greater.

r31 number on!

jetwreck? i recon even terry is sorry he got out of the r31

31 sounds 4-5 million times better as well

r31 number one!

only thing i dont like about it is the rb20...... gay

off its tits 26 would make that a sweet car

Edited by fatz

Having seen them all his weekend, the 31 is very exciting to watch. (Thats me sitting behind the R35 with the cap on in the first photo). The 32 just grabs the attention though, everywhere it goes. After hearing Jim Richards and Mark Skaife echo jetwrecks comments almost word for word, it seems the 31 has the nod for fun to drive. I would find it very hard to make a choice, I would want them all, for different reasons.

GMS R31: I can push this car car to the limit and feel comfortable with the response given through the chassis in either understeer or oversteer....not meaning that it's faster just more forgiving at the limit than the R32.

GMS R32: Considering I have only done about 40 laps with it at pace the only feedback that I can give is that to take up to the 85% margin it was very easy to drive....no loss of grip and heaps of low down grunt. Beyond that you would have to have a bit more time in the car...it would be very easy to put on the roof. I also didn't find it that much quicker in a straight line than the R31, but the grip coming out of the corners was awesome. Power steering and sync box made it easy to drive as well.....but you do feel the weight.

Maybe I'm old school but I still love the R31.....I just think I could get much more out of it at the limit....not saying I would be quicker....just the fun factor would be greater.

Cool thanks!

Btw im the same Steve from the old pac run last night, grey shirt and jeans :P

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

    • I think my main complaint with your idea is that there is a veneer of idealism spread across it. You want the simple numbers to make it easier, but all they will do is make it easier for someone to come to the wrong conclusion because the fine details will kick them in the nuts. As it is right now, the tiny bit of arithmetic is NOT the obstacle to understanding what will fit and what will not fit. The reality of trying it is what determines whether it will fit. If you had a "standard rule" that R34 GTT guards have that magic 100mm space from the hub face to whichever side you were worried about, and someone said "excellent, this wheel is only 98mm in that direction, I'll just go spend $4k on them and jam them on my sick ride".....they would just as likely find out that the "standard rule" is not true because the rear subframe is offset to one side by a fairly typical (but variable) 8mm on their car and they only have 92mm on one side and 108 on the other.
    • It still combines inches with mm, especially when you have .5 inches involved, and mm and inches that can go in either direction. This would give a clear idea on both sides of the rim, right away, with no arithmetic. Even better if somebody gives you the dimensions of the arch of multiple cars. i.e GTR may be 125mm, a A80 Supra may be 117mm, or something along those lines. Yes, you can 'know' that going from a 10in rim to a 10.5in rim with the same offset moves both sides about 6mm, but you still have to 'know' that and do the math. Often it's combined. People are going from 9.5 +27 to 10.5 +15. You may do the math to know it, but if it was going from (I had to go look it up to be sure) 241mm/2 - 27 - 93.5mm from the center line to (more math) 266/2 - 15 (118mm) from the center line. Versus 93mm vs 118mm. It's right there. If you know you have a GTT with 100mm guards you can see right away that one is close to flush and the other absolutely won't work. And when someone says "Oh the GTR is 120mm" suddenly you see that the 10.5 +15 is about perfect. (or you go and buy rims with approximately 118mm outward guard space) I think it's safe to say that given one of the most common questions in all modified cars is "How do offsets work" and "How do I know if wheels will fit on my car" that this would be much simpler... Of course, nothing will really change and nobody is going to remanufacture wheels and ditch inches and offset based on this conversation :p We'll all go "18x9+30 will line up pretty close to the guards for a R34 GTT (84mm)" but 'pretty close' is still not really defined (it is now!) and if you really care you still have go measure. Yes it depends on camber and height and dynamic movement, but so do all wheels no matter what you measure it for.
    • But offsets are simple numbers. 8" wheel? Call it 200mm, near enough. +35 offset? OK, so that means the hub face is that far out from the wheel centreline. Which is 2s of mental arithmetic to get to 65mm to outer edge and 135mm to inner. It's hardly any more effort for any other wheel width or offset. As I said, I just close my eyes and can see a picture of the wheel when given the width and offset. That wouldn't help me trust that a marginal fitment would actually go in and clear everything, any more than the supposedly simple numbers you're talking about. I dunno. Maybe I just automatically do numbers.
    • Sure! But you at least have simple numbers instead of 8.5 inches +/mm, relative to your current rims you do maths with as well, and/or compare with OEM diameter, which you also need to know/research/confirm..
×
×
  • Create New...