Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Does anyone remember the super tourers of the mid 90s- early 00s? The weight penalties were something like FWD 0kg, RWD 50kg, 4WD 150kg... The group A GTRs had a massive weight penalty over the Sierras to start with but by the end of racing were carrying a heap more weight and boost restrictions that were not applied to the Sierras, anyone remember how that went? I am not going to get into science and big noting myself, because it is very simple, 4WD gives better grip, allowing you to use more HP, sooner. The rallying is very relevant simply because it highlights the difference by reducing the grip. I cannot think of a race series that allows 4WD where it is not unbeatable (no, I do not care about drag racing)

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the long and the short of it is that no matter which side you are on, group A is an extremely poor example to use. the rules and regulations were pretty ordinary, and manufacturers could build a car that was right on th elimit, make enough road going models to get it allowed to race and that was it, meanwhile other car companies were simply beefing up existing models to make them a little bit better.

i would've like to had seem how the AWD turbo falcon that ford was working on (but ended up scrapping) would've gone against the GTR.

oh and i remember the super tourers that were all 4 cylinders (basically what the BTCC is). because of parity regulations neither fwd, rwd or awd dominated, however in the wet the audi's did very well, being awd.

That was why I mentioned the Supertourers/BTCC, very tightly regulated and controlled, they wrote rules to hobble the 4WDs, then outlawed them. So in summary, OP, was it Tyres?, asked for opinions, my OPINION, Build a 4WD, which means if you want to restrict it to a Skyline GTR, but an Evo will make a better cheaper track car... Puts on Wizard hat and robe... Realises flame suit will do shit all on this one...

I had a run against my mate in his GTS-T and my GTR. His car had more rwkw than mine yet at the track the GTR would walk away from in the corners. If you add more power to the GTST the situation will only get worse, not better. Ive owned and driven everything turbo in the R32 guise and the GTR is at the top of tree im afraid.

Did I just get owned in my own thread? I think I did :thumbsup:. Thanks guys, gonna sell my Skyline and get a cheap 'run around' til i'm in the opens. Not much I can argue, I can already see oversteer is possible from the videos NISMO has posted, with limited grip levels even as an AWD from high power.

Marc: Last time I checked the rules of Group A racing (just then), there was no rule on the compound of tyre you can run so I'm assuming that it was a modern day spec Group A GTR. Why did Ford scrap the AWD turbo Falcon? They released the XR6T anyways so I don't see why they wouldn't just release it as an AWD, surely it wouldn't cost that much more to develop unless a certain drivetrain works better for some cars?

djr81: Not saying I don't believe you or anything but you're saying that the more static load a tyre has, the less grip it will have? It would at least make sense if the tyre's coefficient of grip decreased with decreased load because of the area of tyre patch. Is there an explanation? If given a weight heavy enough, would the coeffecient of friction become 0? (LOL logic) Or would it just asymptote? For your information I have read Carroll Smith's Drive To Win and am a big fan of his books. In regards to the GTSR comment, the G35/V35 is actually pretty much just as fast as a R32 GTR (Reference

skip to 3:45 onwards), it's FR and it weighs more. Hows that work if AWD was so superior and modern?

Iplen: Yeah it's true, Evos dominate the top places in TA because their AWD system is actually sophisticated with all the yaw controls etc, probably as developed as the R34 GTR system. Spoke to a few Evo owners and they said it was cheaper, and more reliable to track the Evo instead of a GTR.

RBNT: But the GTS-T had you in terms of acceleration right? More wheels to spin = more drivetrain loss. What aero and tyres was he running compared to you? Who had a better lap time? (No I don't wanna hear excuses if you lost lol)

Edited by TyresBro
  On 14/05/2011 at 3:32 PM, TyresBro said:

Did I just get owned in my own thread? I think I did :thumbsup:. Thanks guys, gonna sell my Skyline and get a cheap 'run around' til i'm in the opens. Not much I can argue, I can already see oversteer is possible from the videos NISMO has posted, with limited grip levels even as an AWD from high power.

Marc: Last time I checked the rules of Group A racing (just then), there was no rule on the compound of tyre you can run so I'm assuming that it was a modern day spec Group A GTR. Why did Ford scrap the AWD turbo Falcon? They released the XR6T anyways so I don't see why they wouldn't just release it as an AWD, surely it wouldn't cost that much more to develop unless a certain drivetrain works better for some cars?

djr81: Not saying I don't believe you or anything but you're saying that the more static load a tyre has, the less grip it will have? It would at least make sense if the tyre's coefficient of grip decreased with decreased load because of the area of tyre patch. Is there an explanation? If given a weight heavy enough, would the coeffecient of friction become 0? (LOL logic) Or would it just asymptote? For your information I have read Carroll Smith's Drive To Win and am a big fan of his books. In regards to the GTSR comment, the G35/V35 is actually pretty much just as fast as a R32 GTR (Reference

skip to 3:45 onwards), it's FR and it weighs more. Hows that work if AWD was so superior and modern?

Iplen: Yeah it's true, Evos dominate the top places in TA because their AWD system is actually sophisticated with all the yaw controls etc, probably as developed as the R34 GTR system. Spoke to a few Evo owners and they said it was cheaper, and more reliable to track the Evo instead of a GTR.

RBNT: But the GTS-T had you in terms of acceleration right? More wheels to spin = more drivetrain loss. What aero and tyres was he running compared to you? Who had a better lap time? (No I don't wanna hear excuses if you lost lol)

the awd falcon was in developement back in the 80's (was going to be a 268kw AWD twin turbo XF).

  On 15/05/2011 at 1:00 PM, TyresBro said:

No, I'm saying they probably scrapped the AWD XF and invested the rest of the money into the creation of the RS200... (yes it did have a turbo as well as AWD)

you do realise that the rs200 finished production around the same time that they started the AWD XF designing. it was more likely scrapped because of new emissions laws, and the fact that the XF model was scrapped for the EA.

  On 16/05/2011 at 10:38 AM, mad082 said:

rs200 was actually AWD

Marc and I don't agree to often, but yeah, RS2000 was RWD, RS 200 was not, mid engined 1.8 turbo, with 4WD, twin shocks and there was some sort of tricky gearbox too, dual range or something from memory. The Evolution was going to be 2l. Was released for the RAC Lombard at the end of 85, part way through 86 it was announced that group B was to be finished as well as Group S which was due to replace it, following the death of Henri Toivenen and Sergio Cresto as well as an RS200 crew after they ploughed into spectators. When Ford/cosworth were developing this thing they could not have cared less what a little tuning company in Aus was doing..

  On 15/05/2011 at 1:07 AM, RBNT said:

....and yes, you got owned in your own thread

gud werk

No I didn't get owned actually. In the end, you guys ran outta arguments or couldn't answer your own statements :cheers:

This brng out the other question in the events of owning a GTR, would you install an AWD torque split controller? And if yes, what would you set it to on the track? Be honest. If no, why?

Edited by TyresBro
  On 14/05/2011 at 3:32 PM, TyresBro said:

Did I just get owned in my own thread? I think I did :thumbsup:.

I was only agreeing with you.

My knowledge is from experience, not google.

  On 16/05/2011 at 2:03 PM, TyresBro said:

No I didn't get owned actually. In the end, you guys ran outta arguments or couldn't answer your own statements :cheers:

This brng out the other question in the events of owning a GTR, would you install an AWD torque split controller? And if yes, what would you set it to on the track? Be honest. If no, why?

Yes you would install a torque split controller (On a 32 in my experience). You then set it up to transfer as much torque forward as possible (based on the assumption it is of the type that interferes with the lateral accelerometer input to the ATTESSA system).

The GTR's were set up to drive nicely on the road. How you set the up for the track is a whole different story.

  On 16/05/2011 at 11:57 PM, djr81 said:

Yes you would install a torque split controller (On a 32 in my experience). You then set it up to transfer as much torque forward as possible (based on the assumption it is of the type that interferes with the lateral accelerometer input to the ATTESSA system).

The GTR's were set up to drive nicely on the road. How you set the up for the track is a whole different story.

djr81 Are you messing with us? Not saying it's incorrect (or correct), first you say that the less load on a tyre the higher coefficient of grip but now you say with a torque split controller to put as much power to the front wheels as possible. So in a way, on top of the already understeering and front heavy R32 GTR, you give it more understeer?

  On 16/05/2011 at 5:34 PM, RBNT said:

I was only agreeing with you.

My knowledge is from experience, not google.

Well I take it back :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

    • This is for an RB20DET. Sorry for not including that. 
    • Welp, this is where my compression lands after my rebuild. Thoughts? I have ~6 hours on the motor. 
    • Well, after the full circus this week (new gearbag, 14 psi actuator on, injectors and AFM upgraded, and.....turbo repair) the diagnosis on the wastegate is in. It was broken. It was broken in a really strange way. The weld that holds the lever arm onto the wastegate flapper shaft broke. Broke completely, but broke in such a way that it could go back together in the "correct" position, or it could rearrange itself somewhere else along the fracture plane and sit with the flapper not parallel to the lever. So, who knows how and when exactly what happened? No-one will ever know. Was it broken like this the first time it spat the circlip and wedged itself deep into the dump? Or was it only broken when I tried to pry it back into place? (I didn't try that hard, but who knows?). Or did it break first? Or did it break between the first and second event of wierdness? Meh. It doesn't matter now. It is welded back together. And it is now held closed by a 14 psi actuator, so...the car has been tuned with the supporting mods (and the order of operations there is that the supporting mods and dyno needed to be able to be done first before adding boost, because it was pinging on <<14 psi with the new turbo with only a 6 psi actuator). And then tuned up a bit, and with the boost controller turned off throughout that process. So it was only running WG pressure and so only hit about 15-16 psi. The turbo is still ever so slightly lazier than might be preferred - like it is still a bit on the big side for the engine. I haven't tested it on the road properly in any way - just driven it around in traffic for a half hour or so. But it is like chalk and cheese compared to what it was. Between dyno numbers and driving feedback: It makes 100 kW at 3k rpm, which is OK, could be better. That's stock 2JZ territory, or RB20 with G series 550. It actually starts building boost from 2k, which is certainly better than it did recently (with all the WG flapper bullshit). Although it's hard to remember what it was like prior to all that - it certainly seems much, much better. And that makes sense, given the WG was probably starting to blow open at anything above about 3 psi anyway (with the 6 psi actuator). It doesn't really get to "full boost" (say 16 psi) until >>4k rpm. I am hopeful that this is a feature of the lack of boost controller keeping boost pressure off the actuator, because it was turned off for the dyno and off for the drives afterward. There's more to be found here, I'm sure. It made 230 rwkW at not a lot more than 6k and held it to over 7k, so there seems to be plenty of potential to get it up to 250-260rwkW with 18 psi or so, which would be a decent effort, considering the stock sized turbo inlet pipework and AFM, and the return flow cooler. According to Tao, those things should definitely put a bit of a limit on it by that sort of number. I must stress that I have not opened the throttle 100% on the road yet - well, at least not 100% and allowed it to wind all the way up. It'll have to wait until some reasonable opportunity. I'm quite looking forward to that - it feels massively better than it has in a loooong time. It's back to its old self, plus about 20% extra powers over the best it ever did before. I'm going to get the boost controller set up to maximise spool and settle at no more than ~17 psi (for now) and then go back on the dyno to see what we can squeeze out of it. There is other interesting news too. I put together a replacement tube to fit the R35 AFM in the stock location. This is the first time the tuner has worked with one, because anyone else he has tuned for has gone from Z32 territory to aftermarket ECU. No-one has ever wanted to stay Nistuned and do what I've done. Anyway, his feedback is that the R35 AFM is super super super responsive. Tiny little changes in throttle position or load turn up immediately as a cell change on the maps. Way, way more responsive than any of the old skool AFMs. Makes it quite diffifult to tune as you have to stay right on top of that so you don't wander off the cell you wanted to tune. But it certainly seems to help with real world throttle response. That's hard to separate from all the other things that changed, but the "pedal feel" is certainly crisp.
    • I'm a bit confused by this post, so I'll address the bit I understand lol.  Use an air compressor and blow away the guide coat sanding residue. All the better if you have a moisture trap for your compressor. You'd want to do this a few times as you sand the area, you wouldn't for example sand the entire area till you think its perfect and then 'confirm' that is it by blowing away the guide coat residue.  Sand the area, blow away the guide coat residue, inspect the panel, back to sanding... rinse and repeat. 
×
×
  • Create New...