Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe it's just me....but the new 1.07 Lap time would not have been matched by the 500hp rear wheel drive GT2 in the same conditions the GTR

had on tonight's show......looked very dusty/dirty track....... :)

Yep, a 0.14sec difference between GT-R and GT2 shows there is virtually nothing in it...amazing when the GT-R is 300kg heavier, with 4 seats, a decent boot, luxury mod cons and $320,000 cheaper..and is the non-'motor sport' variant of the breed.

I thought TGA may have done another test on it, maybe put it up against a 911 Turbo, even a HSV W427 or similar priced competitors or Audi R8...just to make it interesting. For such an epic lap it was all rather uneventful.

yet the riced up r33 gtr owners get all the phoon.

I like the Skyline GT-R as much as the next person, but there is NO WAY, that gold, pimped , riced GT-R would pull more chicks than a 997 GT3! If it was a standard R33 GT-R that test may have had SOME credibility, but I reckon most chicks will think you are a knob in that particular Skyline they had. I would love to know the demographic of the women they chose, I don't think they are representative of most.

In all the local tests I've seen on the GT-R, they have tested the 'Premium' version. This has Bridgstone RE070R tyres. The entry level model runs Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST. Does anyone one know which produce superior lap times? I thought I read somewhere that "the Dunlops" were quicker than the Bridgestone tires. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? Are the said Dunlops the SP Sport 600 DSST? If this was the case, this would mean that the tests done by Tog Gear Aus and Motor and Wheel have been quicker on the std spec GT-R rather than the 'Premium'. If anyone can confirm Id be most interested! :D

Try thinking of a decent driver that can actually present a show. The current guys are just hopeless. Maybe one of the drift guys like Leighton Fine or Luke Fink to back him up. They need a genuine personality not some half baked has beens or never was's

Fink a presenter? hah...that would be sick...even better Chris Easton, a durry in one hand and a red bull in the other alllll the time...

In all the local tests I've seen on the GT-R, they have tested the 'Premium' version. This has Bridgstone RE070R tyres. The entry level model runs Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST. Does anyone one know which produce superior lap times? I thought I read somewhere that "the Dunlops" were quicker than the Bridgestone tires. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? Are the said Dunlops the SP Sport 600 DSST? If this was the case, this would mean that the tests done by Tog Gear Aus and Motor and Wheel have been quicker on the std spec GT-R rather than the 'Premium'. If anyone can confirm Id be most interested! :P

The Dunlops are quicker than the Bridgestones.

Thanks Skyline Man, I thought this was the case....so this being the case why has Nissan registered a bunch of GT-R Premium press cars instead of a mix of the Standard and Premium models, or all Standard models?. Perhaps the Motor and TGA track results would have been different and tipped the result slightly in favour of the GT-R over the GT2 instead of the otherway around. There is no doubt the black wheels and seat trims of the Premium look better (and would be my choice)..but as a manufacturer pushing a performance car wouldn't you want to bring your 'A-game'??...or have I missed something here?

What is the proof behind the Dunlops being quicker? I am curious, I have a set of Dunlops about to go on my car after the original ones are almost shagged after 2 track days.

Any real tests done would be great, if not I will post comparo times when I get back to the creek on the dunlops.

Cheers

What is the proof behind the Dunlops being quicker? I am curious, I have a set of Dunlops about to go on my car after the original ones are almost shagged after 2 track days.

Any real tests done would be great, if not I will post comparo times when I get back to the creek on the dunlops.

Cheers

This will need confirmation but I thought it was Mizuno himself who said the Dunlops produced better track results than the Bridgstones when questioned about the 7.29min Nurburgring time.

What is the proof behind the Dunlops being quicker? I am curious, I have a set of Dunlops about to go on my car after the original ones are almost shagged after 2 track days.

Any real tests done would be great, if not I will post comparo times when I get back to the creek on the dunlops.

Cheers

All the best 'ring' times are done with the Dunlops. Suzuki also said that the Dunlops are faster and are his preferred tire for tracking.

The only problem with the Dunlops though, is that they don't last as long as the Bridgestones, and so for daily driving, which most GTR owners are using the car for, Bridgestones are the better choice.

The Premium GTRs use to only come with Bridgestones, but now owners can choose either tire.

So when are you going to drive on the ring...? Never .. Yet alone in a car that is capable of doing sub 7.30s.

Seriously who gives a sh*t about Ring times?

I personally care myself, that knowing my future GTR (next year) beats any porsche around the track puts a big grin on my face :O and not to mention is one third the price too

So when are you going to drive on the ring...? Never .. Yet alone in a car that is capable of doing sub 7.30s.

Seriously who gives a sh*t about Ring times?

Pretty simple minded statement.

True that most people don't drive on the 'ring', but it's good to know what your car is capable of compared with other cars on the 'ring'. If all performance car manufactures use the 'ring' as a test track for their cars, trying to outdo each other by making the fastest 'ring' cars, who benefits in the end?

Knowing the maximum potential of your car gives you an idea of how well it is engineered and hence, 'is it worth it's price compared with the competition?' This applies to every product in life. Simple.

Edited by skyline_man

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'd be installing 2x widebands and using the NB simulation outputs to the ECU.
    • Nah, it's different across different engines and as the years went on. R32 era RB20, and hence also RB26, the TPS SWITCH is the idle command. The variable resistor is only for the TCU, as you say. On R33 era RB25 and onwards (but probably not RB26, as they still used the same basic ECU from the R32 era), the idle command is a voltage output of close to 0.45V from the variable resistor.
    • It's actually one of the worst bits of Nissan nomenclature (also compounded by wiring diagrams when the TCU is incorporated in ECU, or, ECU has a passthru to a standalone TCU).... the gripe ~ they call it the TPS, but with an A/T it's actually a combined unit ...TPS (throttle position switch) + TPS (throttle position sensor).... ..by the looks of it (and considering car is A/T) you have this unit... https://www.amayama.com/en/part/nissan/2262002u11 The connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit, is the TPS (throttle position sensor) ...only the TCU reads this. The connector on the unit body, is the TPS (throttle position switch) ...ECU reads this. It has 3 possible values -- throttle closed (idle control contact), open (both contacts open, ECU controls engine...'run' mode), and WOT (full throttle contact closed, ECU changes mapping). When the throttle is closed (idle control contact), this activates what the patent describes as the 'anti stall system' ~ this has the ECU keep the engine at idling speed, regardless of additional load/variances (alternator load mostly, along with engine temp), and drives the IACV solenoid with PWM signal to adjust the idle air admittance to do this. This is actually a specific ECCS software mode, that only gets utilized when the idle control contact is closed. When you rotate the TPS unit as shown, you're opening the idle control contact, which puts ECCS into 'run' mode (no idle control), which obviously is a non-sequitur without the engine started/running ; if the buzzing is coming from the IACV solenoid, then likely ECCS is freaking out, and trying to raise engine rpm 'any way it can'...so it's likely pulling the valve wide open....this is prolly what's going on there. The signal from the connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit (for the TCU), should be around 0.4volts with the throttle closed (idle position) ~ although this does effect low throttle shift points if set wrong, the primary purpose here is to tell TCU engine is at idle (no throttle demand), and in response lower the A/T line pressure ... this is often described as how much 'creep' you get with shifter in D at idle. The way the TPS unit is setup (physically), ensures the idle control contact closes with a high margin on the TPSensor signal wire, so you can rotate the unit on the adjustment slots, to achieve 0.4v whilst knowing the idle control contact is definitely closed. The IACV solenoid is powered by battery voltage via a fuse, and ground switched (PWM) by the ECU. When I check them, I typically remove the harness plug, feed the solenoid battery voltage and switch it to ground via a 5watt bulb test probe ; thing should click wide open, and idle rpm should increase... ...that said though, if it starts & idles with the TPS unit disconnected, and it still stalls when it gets up to operating temperature, it won't be the IACV because it's unused, which would infer something else is winking out...  
    • In the context of cam 'upgrader' I mean generally people who upgrade headers/cams - not my specific change. I mean it makes sense that if I had a bigger cam, I may get more false lean readings. So if I went smaller, I'd get less false lean readings. To a point where perhaps stock.. I'd have no false lean readings, according to the ECU. But I'm way richer than stock. My bigger than normal cam in the past also was giving false rich leanings. It's rather odd and doesn't add up or pass the pub test. Realistically what I want is the narrowbands to effectively work as closed loop fuel control and keep my AFR around 14.7 on light sections of the map. Which is of course the purpose of narrowband CL fuel control. So if I can change the switch points so the NB's target 14.7 (as read by my WB) then this should be fine. Haven't actually tested to see what the changed switchpoints actually result in - car needs to be in a position it can idle for awhile to do that. I suspect it will be a troublesome 15 min drive home with lots of stalling and way too rich/lean transient nightmare bucking away for that first drive at 2am or whevener it ends up being. Hopefully it's all tune-able. Realistically it should be. This is a very mild cam.
    • Messing with narrowband switchovers is a terrible bandaid. I don't want to think about it. You are a cam "upgrader" only in concept. As you said, your new cam is actually smaller, so it's technically a downgrade. OK, likely a very small downgrade, but nevertheless. But the big thing that will be the most likely suspect is the change of the advance angle. That change could be equivalent to a substantial decrease in cam lobe duration. I haven't gone to the effort of trying to think about what your change would actually cause. But until someone (you, me (unlikely), Matt, someone else) does so and comes to a conclusion about the effect, it remains a possibility that that is the change that is causing what you're seeing.
×
×
  • Create New...