Why does everyone like the Skyline

I think the Skyline is a good car and all but give it up. Most people here in America will never own one. You really can't own one here cause of the extremly high cost to own one. Plus from what I've heard they don't pass emissions.

Thats coz we are not ALL from America :devil: .... And here in NZ they are cheap as (well - compared that what they are in the US).. And trust me - if you ever get to drive a GTR or GTS-T - you will know what the fuss is about...

They are really great cars to drive. After my husband bought an R33 GTS25t I sold my FTO and bought one too. The performance is incredible and as has already been said, if you ever get to drive one, you'll understand. :)

The closes I've ever been to driving a Skyline was driving my uncles Infinti G35.

shame a G35 ain't what a skyline nutta would call a real skyline... :p

Originally posted by streetracer780
I think the Skyline is a good car and all but give it up. Most people here in America will never own one. You really can't own one here cause of the extremly high cost to own one. Plus from what I've heard they don't pass emissions.

Because we just do. :flipa: :finger: :flipa: :finger:

actually it is a good point , very few in the GOOD OL USA, will ever own one, let alone see one in the flesh, but ha let them dream lol

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the US of A:D

Originally posted by NiteskyR
actually it is a good point , very few in the GOOD OL USA, will ever own one, let alone see one in the flesh, but ha let them dream lol
Dreams are what make life worth living. And I did fulfill one of mine...:D

I have a lot of dreams. My dream car is not a Japanese car surprisinly. I actually would love to own a Benz SL500 or possibly a Ferrari 550.

I still wouldn't mine owning a Skyline but the oppertunity ain't there.

why do I like GTR's, specifically RB26's? watch the vids; There aren't a whole lot of other engines capable of putting this much power on all 4 wheels.

http://www.exvitermini.com/

Having driven several skylines, and living in a city that is full of them, I have to say that unless you are talking about a GTR the skyline is a very over rated car.

Originally posted by Moppie
Having driven several skylines, and living in a city that is full of them, I have to say that unless you are talking about a GTR the skyline is a very over rated car. You obviously haven’t driven or been in a 25t with the power figure of a GTR! :D :D :D

Originally posted by Spec2 Girl
You obviously haven’t driven or been in a 25t with the power figure of a GTR! :D :D :D


No, but Iv driven a GTs-T with more power than a stock GTR. :D

Quite simply I dont think a car is great just because it is capable of going very quickly in a straight line simply because it has lots of power.
There is more to what a makes a car great than its accleration, things like handling, steering feel, responsiveness, style, ergonomics, refinment, technical sophistication etc etc.

Simple raw grunt worked well in the 60s and 70s, (as a decade the 80s never existed) but from the 90s till today its simply old fashioned and IMO primitive.

Fair enough. Each to his/her own I guess. :D

I think Skylines are very stylish and quick cars......thats why I like them.

Some of their popularity also comes from the success of the GTR racing in Japan in the early 90's and in Oz (before they were banned). The Skylines really kicked ass then and have become something of an icon ever since.

Originally posted by Moppie



No, but Iv driven a GTs-T with more power than a stock GTR. :D

Quite simply I dont think a car is great just because it is capable of going very quickly in a straight line simply because it has lots of power.
There is more to what a makes a car great than its accleration, things like handling, steering feel, responsiveness, style, ergonomics, refinment, technical sophistication etc etc.

Simple raw grunt worked well in the 60s and 70s, (as a decade the 80s never existed) but from the 90s till today its simply old fashioned and IMO primitive.

Agreed, and that's why the Skyline is such a good car. There are much faster cars in a straight line - I mean come on, it's a damn heavy GT car, not a lightweight little box of a sports car. It handles really well, as a GT car. It's not designed to handle like a short wheelbase sports car; it's a Grand Tourer, so it likes the open road, and is beautiful there. Add to that the refinement and luxury (for the price) and you've got a hell of a car.

So there.

I think the disertation should go like this:

Skylines look cool, are fast, and a hell of a lot of fun to modify and drive!

Given the above, I would have to agree with MOPPIE the skyline GT-R is getting old. The technology is aging, and there are newer cars out there that are seriously bad-ss. For example the Audi RS6. All wheel drive and 450bhp all in a family sedan wrapper with flared fenders (Yeah boy)! All from the factory! (Also: Dodge Viper, Corvette, Porsche, etc...)

I own a 2001 corvette coupe and it is a lot of fun at the autocross track, however I will be getting a GT-R as soon as I get back to Japan in December. Why, because it is my only chance to drive such a cool machine!

However, when I get back stateside in 2005 I think it is M5 or RS6 time, as Chevy dishes out the worst customer service I have ever had the displeasure of being subjected too!

I have to agree with SAMI too. It's all about dreams...
Many times people ask me why would I waste my money on an impractical car like a vette. My response is simple:

" Owning my vette is the difference between having a dream and living the dream". ....Nuff said.

Al

Ok guys in America ,, a Skyline is not over rated I drove so many cars in my life and NOTHING I mean NOTHING even comes close to a GTR34 Vspec my car, BUILD QUALITY, gearing is so smooth the ride is nice ,, and preformance lol well I laught in the face of the likes of Porsche and Ferrari..

American cars I dont like em and their built quality is so poor. your 5.9's V8's and 7.8 or whatever V10's are no match to the 2.6 liter inline 6 engine. and this is the truth...

Yawn..... :o

BBD,

Ahh! Once again, it is refreshing to hear from a person who beleives a pound of lead weighs more than two pounds of feathers!

Congratulations! For any of us who may have questioned the level of your knowledge, you have removed all doubts. :rolleyes:

Al

Skylines are legends and have dominated over everything in the racing world. A Skyline can beat any car out there, heck, the JGTC racing league in Japan had to make an entire class jsut for Skylines becasue they were beating everyone else so bad. The Skyline is the unisputable king of all cars

Originally posted by XykoHippo
Skylines are legends and have dominated over everything in the racing world. A Skyline can beat any car out there, heck, the JGTC racing league in Japan had to make an entire class jsut for Skylines becasue they were beating everyone else so bad. The Skyline is the unisputable king of all cars Thanks, Mr. JGTC Expert! :rolleyes: I won't try isputing that!

"Track Record for production cars at the Nürburgring Northloop, the most difficult racetrack of the world, until the Porsche 996 Turbo came along, and it won the JGTC championship in 1999."

"The GT-R V-SPEC is driven through a complex 4WD system called (ATTESA E-TS Pro) which considers drive and brake forces and precisely distributes torque independently to each of the four wheels to ensure maximum grip in all conditions and at all times!"

"A complex system also controls the steering angle of the rear wheels according to the vehicle's speed and Yaw rate. The result of such integrated advanced technology is that the GT-R is next to Porsche's 911 turbo (which is 3.6 litres) as being the world's fastest production turbo 4WD car!!!"

Only fast in a stright line! Poor Technology! Know what your taking about before you post.

"Dominated over everything in the racing world..."

Perhaps you don't watch any coverage of the Le Mans or Daytona series. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong the Skyline GT-R is a great car, and I will hopefully have one in about 4 months, but it isn't the end all be all in Sports cars. There are plenty of other great cars that can easily best the Skyline in a number of venues. Try not to be blinded by brand or model loyalty.

Now if they would just make a V-8 Skyline!

Peace,

Al

who would want a V8 skyline, surely as hell not me.....

I am total agreement with Hellbent.

You can really tell from the context of peoples posts, who has one, or who reads about them. I am not knocking anyone, just try to be a little more unbiased when you write.

BBD,

Your statement really is unfounded.

A V8 TT, ATTES, HICAS, N2O, GTR. I can do that:)

SR20DETpower,

Your letting the darkside cloud your judgement.:)

V8 TTs are awesome. More torque for the street, more power down low. I am going to build mine 2.6 that way. More streetable.

With a V8, your more than half way there.

I know a lot of you have these walls built up about V8s, and it really is a shame. That is why I have both. I can appreciate them equally.

The problem would be that V8's aren't as well balanced as I-6's. You wouldn't want high displacement either. Sure the torque would be nice but you wouldn't gain much in hp and you would lose in the rpms. When racing you don't need that torque anyway, what you need is rpms.

A low displacement V12 that revs high, now that would be nice... :)

Sami,

What do you mean by balanced?

As far as torque and power it would all depend on what type of racing you are doing, and where you are racing.

Originally posted by SkylineUSA
What do you mean by balanced?
Balanced as eliminating all the vibrations. Inline 6 is a naturally balanced engine where V6 and V8 need balance shafts and are still not as well balanced as I-6. V12 is naturally balanced as well as it uses two I-6's.

I found this from net:
http://www.thrashercharged.com/tech_htm/adv_engine_design.shtm
Originally posted by SkylineUSA
As far as torque and power it would all depend on what type of racing you are doing, and where you are racing.
While we are speaking of Skylines it should be assumed that racing = road racing. Everything else is just a waste of time... ;)

Awesome page, Thanks.


Point takin:D

Sami,

Great page you posted. It reminds me of the good old days of deisel engine lab back in college.

I would certainly concur that inline 6s are great engines. BMW makes a number of these great engines. I have even heard that some older Ford pick-ups came with a robust I-6, that could pull stumps with the best of V-8s.

I am really looking forward to wrenching on the Skyline's I-6 soon.

However a few of your comments conflict with the page you posted. V-8 engines are esentially just as well balanced as an I-6, and V-8 engines do not require balance shafts. 90 degree V-8s have slight anomolies in balance due to firing order and crank angles, however these are resolved by counterweighting the crank, and rotationally balacing the entire rotating assembly together.

Unfortunately, V-6s are fraught with inherent imbalances. This requires balance shafts. Balance shafts add weight to the engine, and additional components (rotational mass) that increase friction and rotational inertia, both of which rob horsepower.

As for displacement...
All things being equal the more displacement you have the more torque you make. Torque is simply a force multiplied by a distance. (Essentially the combustion chamber gases exerting a pressure on the total surface area of the tops of your pitons, multiplied by conecting rod length.) Horsepower, or more simply "power" is the rate at which a machine can accomplish work, or a measurement of energy exerted over a period of time. So Horsepower can be thought of as torque per minute.

Therefore, extrapolating this theory, more displacement = more torque. More torque = more horsepower.

Looking a little bit further... an inline six cylinder engine with half the displacement of a V-8 would have to exert twice as much force on each piston to equal the V-8's torque. (This is possible through forced induction or N20).

For the Inline 6 to pull ahead it would have to either exert even more force on each piston, or complete more work in the same amount of time (increase it's RPMs). This of course is done at the disadvantage of adding weight and complexity. I think that when you add the weight of turbos, piping, coolers, intercoolers, wastegates, addittional oil and coolants, heat sheilding, boost control electronics, and gauges the I-6 weighs as much or more than the V-8!

In the end I think it is a wash. I myself would prefer to have the reliability of a naturally asparated pushrod V-8 on raceday. It is much easier to work on, and later I can add tubos, a supercharger, or Nitrous. Once you have maxed out a smaller displacement engine, there is nothing else to add. Dollar for dollar it is my belief the V-8 will always supply the best bang (and reliability) for the buck.

Sorry, I tried to keep it brief! ;)

HellBent,

I am not trying to give you complements on all you posts, but another darn good one:)

You look forward to wrenchen on the 'ol rb26dett........Its fun:) Just make sure you have some crows feet:D Some of those turbo bolts are a pain to get to.

I love V8s as well, I just wish some of the kids on here wouldrelize that. I know you and I sure do.

Tony

Originally posted by HellBent
However a few of your comments conflict with the page you posted. V-8 engines are esentially just as well balanced as an I-6, and V-8 engines do not require balance shafts. 90 degree V-8s have slight anomolies in balance due to firing order and crank angles, however these are resolved by counterweighting the crank, and rotationally balacing the entire rotating assembly together.
Still, you have an engine that requires balancing and my understanding is it still isn't as balanced as I6 or V12.
Originally posted by HellBent
As for displacement...
All things being equal the more displacement you have the more torque you make. Torque is simply a force multiplied by a distance. (Essentially the combustion chamber gases exerting a pressure on the total surface area of the tops of your pitons, multiplied by conecting rod length.) Horsepower, or more simply "power" is the rate at which a machine can accomplish work, or a measurement of energy exerted over a period of time. So Horsepower can be thought of as torque per minute.

Therefore, extrapolating this theory, more displacement = more torque. More torque = more horsepower.

I see what you mean but it is not that simple. More torque does not equal more horsepower. torque * rpms = power. With larger displacement it is harder to get a high revving engine. Exhibit A) Supra 3.0l TT, exhibit B) GT-R 2.6l TT. Some people prefer A for its displacement, others prefer B for its redline.

You might prefer torque over rpms and drivability is one thing I give on this topic. However, in racing rpms are more important. You would have to experience it yourself to fully understand what I mean. Drag racing might be different but that is for those who can't drive anyway so we won't go in there... :)

If Nissan would put a NA V8 in its new GT-R, would you think they would make it tunable? Adding a turbo or SC to existing V8's isn't easy and requires major rebuilding to get them into high hp. I doubt that any manufacturer would make a V8 ready to be turboed.

Sami,

I would have to disagree with you. More Torque does relate directly to more HP. RPM is a factor, as the more RPMs you turn, the more work you accomplish, but without the base torque you have no ability to build power.

As for RPMs... they are not what racers pursue. RPMs do not win races, drivers and intact vehicles win races. I autocross regularly, and I won the NCCA South Eastern region 2002 Championship in 1SH class.

During a hard race it is not always possible to exactly hit your powerband. Sometimes as you corner your speed out of a turn is not always optimally paired to the gear you must be in as you exit the turn. If your RPMs are below where you want to be, the only hing that will drag you out of that hole is good ole' axle bending, frame twisting torque. The same applies to good up-hill stretches. The French learned this painfull lesson when they went head to head with the Vipers at LeMans. Their only response was to call the Vipers, "That vulgar American Car"!

Peace,

Allon

Originally posted by HellBent
I would have to disagree with you. More Torque does relate directly to more HP.
Sorry, no.
Originally posted by HellBent
RPM is a factor, as the more RPMs you turn, the more work you accomplish, but without the base torque you have no ability to build power.
That is why it is important to have a compromise of torque and rpms. Surely an electric engine will turn in huge rpms but without the torque your usage is limited. On the other hand you have hydraulic engines with HUGE torque but low rpms.
Originally posted by HellBent
As for RPMs... they are not what racers pursue. RPMs do not win races, drivers and intact vehicles win races.
rpms do not win but that is what is preferred on a race car.
Originally posted by HellBent
During a hard race it is not always possible to exactly hit your powerband.
That is why it is important to have a wide powerband. With an engine with a wide powerband (read: lots of rpms) to play with, you can manage that easier. In general, for an unexperienced driver, car with lots of torque on low rpms is easier to drive. For experienced driver, high revving car is faster to drive.

For instance my car, it revs up to 8k yet still has lots of torque down at 4k. In Mineral Wells, which is like an oversized autocross track, I could drive that on a 3rd gear the whole lap while having nice torque and some speed.

Like I said, it's a compromise. Increase the size of the engine, you'll both gain and lose. Increasing the number of cylinders over the size of the cylinder, that is a win/win situation except for space and weight.

Sami,

I am not here to argue, and I will agree with many of your points. Especially when it comes to engine size, weight, displacement, revs, and induction. The engine has to be planned and built to the purpose of the car. Wether this be cost, performance, reliability, or just the glamour of certain engine styles.

However, I must still disagree with your understanding of torque, RPMs and their relationship to power. Torque and and time are the two main compenents of power. Therefore, it is true that RPM, as a component of time, is part of the equation for horsepower. However torque is equally as important. The amount of torque an engine produces at a particular RPM is directly proportional to the HP produced. For two engines operating at the same RPM, engine A with half the torque as engine B will consequently produce about half the HP.

Now this is not to say that engine A cannot be reved higher and produce more power than engine B operating at a lower RPM.

When talking about race engines it would not be practical to assume that there is a huge disparity in RPMs between racing V-8s and other racing engine types. These engines are much different than street engines and are usually constarained only by the laws of physics. Just because an engine is of a V-8 configuration does not mean it can't out rev an inline 6. The main limits to RPM are valve float (and several related factors) and piston/conecting rod g-loads (related to stroke and piston weights). Normaly forced induction is needed to feed an engine at higher RPMs if it is to be drivable at lower RPMs.

A wide power-band is very important as well. This is dependent on a flat torque curve, not the ability to rev. RPMs are are not in and of themselves what makes a car fast. A car must be operated in it's power band to be fast. If that car is a turbo, of course it will have it's powerband in the higher RPMs. A large displacement naturally aspirated engine will most likely have it's powerband about 1000-1500 RPM lower than the turbo engine. But all this conversation is 6 of one half dozen of the other.

When it comes to forced induction, this is nothing new to V-8s. The 5.0L Ford V-8s have been getting blowers and turbos long before the "Fast and the Furious" was even a glimmer in a directors eye. The fastest 5.0 Mustangs ( 7 second E.T.) owned by Racin' Jason and Gene Deputy were both Twin Turbos. They reached these records in the early 90s. Forced induction V-8s are finally making a comeback in the mass market autos as the major manufacturers build more powerful cars. An example of just a few are: 2002 Ford F-150 lightening (5.4 liter supercharged 385 HP), 2003 Mustang Cobra (supercharged 4.8 Liter 398 HP), Audi RS6 (twin turbo V-8 450 HP). Several more are on the way! When you look at major manufacturers, they don't make 450HP I-6 engines, because they wouldn't want the warranty issues. Big power is more reliable with larger displacement. Simply force divided by area. You can make a 1000 HP 1 liter motor, but you won't get a 5 year 50,000 mile warranty with it!

As for racing, the only car that is easy for an inexperienced driver to race is a car with big brakes, grippy tires, and little power. A car with a lot of torque and power down low is actually a very difficult car to drive. At several of our club races, a Bragg Smith instructor competed in the open class with his Viper. He found it hard to keep on the track, because it was very easy to over drive the car on such a tight course. Nothing epitomizes "lots of torque on low RPMs" like the Viper. I think it would be much easier to drive Skyline or WRX than say a vette or Viper. To quote Mario Andretti "Driving the Viper is like balancing a grape on the blade of a knife. It takes skill and concentration, and it is hard to do for a long period of time!"

I will reserve any other coments about racing the Skyline until I get seat time, in a few months. I am eager to see how the all wheel drive feels. I kind of like the power on oversteer of the vette, but maybe the sure footedness of AWD will be even more fun!

Peace,

Al
(Sorry for the long post, but it's a rainy day! ;) )

I think you misunderstood me. Power is torque and rpms. Torque itself is not going to create it, nor is rpms. Now to the displacement, with a smaller displacement cylinder (not an engine) it is much easier to rev it higher so the assumption is the engine with smaller displacement will rev higher. With that assumption the V8 that would rev as high as RB26, the displacement would need to be 3.5l. Not a perfect logic but gives a rough idea.

I agree with your statement about inexperienced drivers. I was only looking at that from engine perspective. While a torque monster is hard to drive, it is easier to drive on the streets or on the track when you're not pushing it 100%. Getting out of a turn with a Viper and revving it low will get it out of it nicely, now rev it high and you'll lose the rear quite easily. High revving engine, get it out of a turn with low rpms and you'll be way too slow, get it out with high rpms and it will get out there very nicely. Getting into right gear for one thing is hard for inexperienced driver even if your goal isn't the best possible laptime, that is why they prefer engines with nice torque. Viper, well, is a Viper.

As for FI V8's, all I said that the production NA V8's would have to be totally rebuilt to get into high horsepower levels when some already turboed cars are much easier to certain point. Like the ones in Supra and GT-R that are factory overbuilt. The question is would Nissan overbuilt the V8 that would go into the V8? Most likely not unless it comes with a turbo or two from factory.

skylnes are very nice cars!
better than supras/1
ive seen a gtr33 v spec!

sami,

What does it matter how a production V8 comes from the factory. Hell, I can do a complete engine rebuild on my 5.0 in days, not to mention an aftermarket to build a 1000hp, 302 that can live at 10,000rpms. I can do this and still spend less on it than it would take for the RB26. My engine back in the states is very close to this ability right now, but I just do not have the funds to ship it over here.

The statement you made about what nissan would do, it really is not relavent.

When it comes to engines, too much of one or the other (torque, high hp) will make the engine crap in most cases. You have to know what you are doing. Both you guys know what you are doing, just going about it in your own ways. I am do both at once:)

Peace Guys.

Originally posted by SkylineUSA
What does it matter how a production V8 comes from the factory.
It's money and time to rebuilt it. In the case of a modern V8 that was a new design, do you think it would cheap or there would be parts available? Also, if you can rebuilt the bigger displacement engine, then you can also rebuilt the smaller. The end result will be the same, the smaller will rev higher.
Originally posted by SkylineUSA
When it comes to engines, too much of one or the other (torque, high hp) will make the engine crap in most cases. You have to know what you are doing. Both you guys know what you are doing, just going about it in your own ways. I am do both at once:)
Don't get me wrong, I had the same goal when I upgraded my engine. Small ball bearing turbos that provide nice hp and torque but spool up quick at the same time. I could have gone with a big single that would have given me much more hp for less money but driveability was what I was looking for. It starts pulling from 3k, full boost at 4k, then the peak between 6-8k when you hold on for your dear life. The difference between 4-6k and 6-8k you can notice but it is not that significant to call it lag. It doesn't "kick in" by any means.

Well it's good to see that we can all reach a little common ground. I for one love the fact that there is so much varity out there when it comes to sports cars. It is almost too much to bear to wait for the chance to purchase a Skyline! The sad thing is I am driving a Kia Optima Rental car! Oh the shame!!! (Gawd I am so depressed I haven't even opened the hood!)

I have to agree with Tony about the ease of hopping up V-8s. Of course I am biased towards the V-8 as you can see from my posts. It's not that I dislike smaller engines, it's just I want to start with the best potential. Dollar for dollar, it is my steadfast belief that more HP and Torque can be had out of a small block Ford or Chevy than any motor on the planet, especially on a budget.

My other point against 6 cylinder and smaller engines is that you just don't see them in "Super Cars". Sure there are a few smaller hi performance engines like the Porsche twin turbo. However, the "Super Car" shoot-outs you see in the big magazines are predominantly V-8s and larger. The Acura NSX made it into a few, but it just didn't have the HP to hang with the big boys. The Japanese manufactures have consistently limited HP to 275 and below, and yet have mated these engines to some very heavy bodies. The NSX being the only really light exception, but even now it is dated. If it had arrived to US shores with 350HP, it probablly would have ranked much higher and been more popular.

To be fair there are several smaller displacement engines I really like. I have never been a fan of Porsche, but I love the Skyline, the Subaru WRX, Mitsubishi EVOs, and the Ford Cosworths. Lotus and TVR also build some nice cars. However, most of these smaller displacement cars have their own race series where they do not compete against the larger displacement cars. It's a matter of what they were built for. The Viper could not compete in WRC races, and the Subaru WRX could not hope to compete with the Viper in LeMans. Apples and Oranges.

As the French say "Vive la differance"! Let's enjoy the cornocopia of awsome cars we have and appreciate each for it's fine points. We are truely living in the second coming of the muscle car era. Never before have there been so many cars with so much performance!

Enjoy the ride!

Al

Porsche flat 6, which you mentioned. Toyota's 2JZ, Nissan's RB26. All engines supercar-worthy. 280ps is the agreement but for example RB26DETT in the late R34 GT-R was making 350hp in detuned form when in R32 it was making 320hp. Besides, it was not the stock power they give, it is the power they give once you remove the restrictions.

If I had to give up my GT-R and get another car, Porsche would be the first thing I would look at.

Sami,

To each his own! I can respect your choices in vehicles, especially the Skyline! ;)

My youngest brother has gone through a Toyota Supra twin turbo, Lexus IS 300, and a Honda S2000 so he is kind of Black sheep in our family, but we love him anyway. I've gotten a little seat time in these cars, and they all were very nice.

The Supra was very cool, but a very heavy car! The Lexus was very nicely done as well. I almost bought one when I lived in Japan, except there it is a Toyota Alteza! As for the S2000, I couldn't find anything I really liked about it. Small, loud, go-kartish, small, and underpowered. (I know I said small twice... damn that car was small inside!) Well I guess parking it was easy.

I agree that the RB26DETT is probably making more than 275HP but the quarter mile times don't support 350HP. An all wheel drive car, with 350HP should be very close to sub 13 sec passes in the 1/4 mile. All the stock numbers I've seen don't show it.

To be fair I will reserve further comment until I can pilot one down the 1000m or whatever is the Nippon equivalent.

Peace,

Al

HellBent,

I have seen very lightly moded R32 GTRs in the low 12s. I would bet my R32 GTR should be high 12s as it sits.

Although, I was at the Dyno run a couple of months ago where there were 20 or so Skylines. The highest power out was a maxed out R34 only putting out 424hp. Most were in the high 200s. So you have to take the so called dyno power numbers with a grain of salt. It is not the best way to compare one car to the next.

1/4 mile times sure do tell a lot though.

Do you ever read www.nsxfiles.com very good reading if you get a chance.

Originally posted by HellBent
As for the S2000, I couldn't find anything I really liked about it. Small, loud, go-kartish, small, and underpowered. (I know I said small twice... damn that car was small inside!) Well I guess parking it was easy.
That is why some people like it. If it drives like a go-kart then it is fun to drive. Shifter kart would be a better comparison as people tend to view go-karts as those next to your local arcade hall.
Originally posted by HellBent
I agree that the RB26DETT is probably making more than 275HP but the quarter mile times don't support 350HP. An all wheel drive car, with 350HP should be very close to sub 13 sec passes in the 1/4 mile. All the stock numbers I've seen don't show it.
Stock, all GT-R are high 12s 1/4 mile cars. Like this one: http://www.sami.kallio.com/skyline/sivu6.jpg

12.75s in 0-400m (which is 2m short of 1/4 mile) for a heavy V-Spec R33.

Tony,

I remeber vaguely your post on the Skylines at the dyno. I will have to go back and check it out. Was the power measured at the rear wheels or at the crank?

I remember back in my 5.0 Mustang hay-day in the early 90s when we all were at the track every other weekend. Even among the relatively stock cars there were still big flucuations in numbers of the E.T.s. MPH for a run was a much better way to guestimate power output. You could run a 15 sec pass if you missed a gear or two, but still post a reasonably consistent MPH.

Al

Sami,

I acknowledge the GTR can probably turn some great times in the right hands. You may even be one of the greatest drivers ever. However there must be a baseline. Unless I drive the two cars that are in question, I would have to defer judgement to a reputable Magazine that uses scientific testing and numerous drivers in a controlled enviorment.

The same argument you make has been waged by both the Ford and Chevy camps in the Pony car wars. "Muscle Mustang and Fast Fords" is definitely going to post different numbers (read quicker) for the new Cobra than "Motor Trend". But I think the "Motor Trend" type numbers are more supportable and closer to reality and factory specs than a brand specific magazine. Heck, even my vette is reportedly a few 10ths slower than what I and others in my club can get out of it. This par for the course though. Up to this point, everything I've seen on showroom stock Skyline GTRs implies high 13's.

Please don't take this post the wrong way. I can't wait to get a Skyline and give it a workout. I think it's a great car and I've been dreaming of one for quite some time. But as an engineer, I try to look only at the facts. Please let me know if there is a major auto magazine that has documented a stock Skyline GTR at a lower E.T.

Regards,

Al

Originally posted by HellBent
Up to this point, everything I've seen on showroom stock Skyline GTRs implies high 13's.
I hope you are not referring to R&T times that are posted in every US site, 13.7s. If you are, do some research on it, you'd be suprised how they did the testing. Other magazine tests have GT-R's run high 12's in stock form.

Originally posted by HellBent
Please let me know if there is a major auto magazine that has documented a stock Skyline GTR at a lower E.T.
I just did in my earlier post.

Sami,

I ran some numbers throught the speedworld HP calculator and here are the results:
(you can crunch the nubers yourself at: http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm)
* weights for vehicle have 180 LBS added for driver*

CAR-------------------WEIGHT* (LBS)----1/4 MILE(SEC)----HP(FLYWHEEL)
93 Mustang LX 5.0______2975____________14.5__________228
03 Mustang Cobra______3840____________13.1__________408
02 Corvette Coupe_____3414____________13.2__________355
02 Subaru WRX _______3265 ____________14.4__________255
02 Porsche 911 Turbo___3588____________12.1__________472
R33 Skyline GTR_______3595 ____________13.0__________382
R34 Skyline GTR_______3650_____________13.0_________387

The weights for the Skylines were taken from your page, and from PROSPEC.com page. The other cars' weights were obtained through the manufacturer or Edmunds.com.

This calculator's numbers look darn close for all the cars other than the Skylines. I can personally speak for the mustangs and the vette. Their times are almost dead on accurate. The Subaru and Porsche were required to make about 8-10 percent more HP by the calculator in order to meet their estimated E.T.s. My belief is that this is due to the anomolies associated with their power being transfered to the ground by AWD. (The AWD cars experience better traction and 60 ft times, probably higher drive line losses as well).

However the Skylines are required to make 112 and 117 more horsepower respectively. Even adjusting the Skylines HP numbers below by the 10 percent mentioned above (subtracting about 38 HP) there is still a large disparity, as seen below:

CAR---------------WEIGHT* (LBS)---1/4 MILE(sec)---HP(FLYWHL)---Stock---DIF
R33 Skyline GTR____3595_________13.0__________344_______280__-64
R34 Skyline GTR____3650_________13.0__________349_______280__-69

even bigger for your high 12s E.T. estimates:
R33 Skyline GTR____3595_________12.75_________365______280___-85
R34 Skyline GTR____3650_________12.75_________370______280___-90

Now if you were to work backwards with the skylines running a more realistic 13.7 E.T. you get:
CAR---------------WEIGHT* (LBS)---1/4 MILE(S)---HP(FLYWHL)---Stock---DIF
R33 Skyline GTR____3595_________13.7___________326______280__-46
R34 Skyline GTR____3650_________13.7___________331______280__-51

Subtract the 10 percent, and voila! (see below) What you get is pretty close to what R&T recorded. The 14 and 18 HP can be explained as the underrating from the factory.

CAR---------------WEIGHT* (LBS)---1/4 MILE(S)---HP(FLYWL)---Stock---DIF
R33 Skyline GTR_____3595_______13.7___________294______280___-14
R34 Skyline GTR_____3650_______13.7___________298______280___-18

Of course this isn't exact, but I would say it is darn close for armchair quarterbacking. I am not bashing the Skyline as I like the car very much, I am merely trying to defend the position of the Large Magazines' Testing procedures. I don't believe their testing procedures are as haphazard as you believe them to be. The HP calculator also collaborates their results. Their results are not perfect, but I believe they are closer to what Joe average can produce on the streets, especially in bone stock trim. For those that can drive better than R&T, good on you. :sun:

You can tell I'm bored! ;)

Al

You said 8-10% for AWD cars, hmmm, 350hp * 1.1 = 385hp. Take into account that the ATTESSA is not continuous so the drivetrain loss isn't as bad, in theory, as in Porsche or Subaru.

As for R&T tests, you really should read more about it. One example, launching, they did it without tirespin. That WAS one of their criteria and they launched the car around 4k prms IIRC. That is not the way to launch a GT-R. There were other issues as well that I can't remember anymore. I asked Sean Morris about these tests as the cars were from Motorex and he told me the next day they (R&T) managed some low 13s runs, still not optimized runs.

A magazine in Australia dynoed a stock R34, close to 300 wheel hp, not sure all wheel or rear wheel. Don't remember the exact figure but their calculations ended up to 350 flywheel hp, give or take a few horses.

I never had my car stock so I can't verify this but there are a few that have dynoed their stock R32. Result...320 flywheel hp, +-5. R34 with better turbos and different cams, 350hp isn't so farfetched.

Sami,

The point I was trying to make with the 10 percent figure was that the AWD method of power transfer to the ground is more efficient, and thus a vehicle with AWD could acheive speeds and times similar to RWD vehicles that have more HP. It appears from the Subaru WRX and Porsche 911 Turbo numbers that AWD vehicles will need about 10 percent less HP than the calculator sugests.

The reason I would look to Motor Trend, R&T, or other Big Magazines is that they show consistency and potentially the least bias (positive or negative). Sure I've had to take their reviews with a grain of salt, especially when looking at Mustang and Vette numbers. I could pilot my stock car to better times than they acheived. However, we are only talking a few tenths. Now the Mustang mags and vette forums will hoot and hollar that they can get better times. But these magazines are close and very reproducable. The Skylines are no different.

I am sure that you or even I with experience and desire can get a Skyline to run times quicker than the big magazines. However, these numbers must be looked on as baselines.

My only other point of contention is the Flywheel HP numbers. I find it hard to believe that, the factory would under-estimate HP numbers by 80 HP. This is just a bit much. I could believe 30 HP at the most but thats about it.

Now if your talking with minor tweaks... sure the sky is the limit. I can remeber getting E.T.s out my almost stock 5.0 that would support 50 HP gains with only an airfilter, under drive pulleys, timing changes, and a cooler thermostat.

I believe these Magazines do what they are designed to do, they offer a medium of comperison between many of the worlds finest cars. They work hard to get the most accurate data as their reputation and circulation depends on it. If you have issue with their testing of the Skyline, I would love to see you letter to them and their response. If you have valid concerns, I am sure they would not want to be in error. They make corrections all the time.

Just my 2 cents!

Al

Originally posted by HellBent
The point I was trying to make with the 10 percent figure was that the AWD method of power transfer to the ground is more efficient, and thus a vehicle with AWD could acheive speeds and times similar to RWD vehicles that have more HP. It appears from the Subaru WRX and Porsche 911 Turbo numbers that AWD vehicles will need about 10 percent less HP than the calculator sugests.
My point also. If you wanted 12.7s times, that would equal to 385hp with that weight. Take into account that 10%: 385*0.9 = 347hp. Consistent with the dyno results.

I see your point about magazines but what good is AWD if you don't use it? R&T didn't use it, they did lame launches and some of their other practices were questionable as well. Just because one magazine gets 13.7s doesn't mean anything especially since other magazines regularly get 1s better times.

As for underrating the power, everyone knows the agreement between manufacturers that "limit" the power to 280ps (276hp). Not everyone knows how much they actually go over that limit. Every single one of VR-4, TT Supra, GT-R have been way over that limit for years. How do you think the R34 managed to go around Nurburgring in 7m52s when it took 400+hp Porsche to beat that time?

I visited the MOTOREX website just out of curiosity. I figured they, if anyone, would have inflated power numbers for the Skyline, but they seem to tote the factory line of 280BHP. Also they list the Baseline HP (wheel) at 244 BHP in their aftermarket speed modification section. This translates into about 290BHP.

Intrestingly enough they had specs on the R33 at:
http://www.motorex.net/m_specr33.html

This sectin showed the R33 at 280 bhp, acheiving a 13.58 at 101.92. This sounds realatively reasonable to me. I can't think of any reason Motorex would purposely report low numbers...

I guess what I am getting at with all this is, the Skyline in "stock" trim is good for around 300-320HP and mid to upper 13s given normal repeatable conditions. I went into plenty of detail about why I support R&T's methodology, and I believe Motorex uses the same priciples. I will be the first to say that I am sure there are those that can pilot the skyline into the 12s in nearly stock condition, but that doesn't represent the mainstream.

The best arguement I can give is that, R&T and many other mainstream (high circulation) auto magazines rate a 2001 Corvette coupe at 13.2 - 13.4 in the quarter mile. I can hit a 13.2 with realative ease and repeatability. I could go lower, if I tweaked at the engine, put in Synthetic fluids, swithched in a K&N filter and maybe a cold air tube, and run the stickiest street legal tires I could find. Then as I launch I could feather the clutch out of the hole, and power shift like a madman. The end result would undoubtedly be high 12s. Heck there are even some guys on the corvette forum claiming 12.7s and lower.

In the end I would end up with a burnt clutch, and severe driveline wear on a $50k car. No thanks! Driving the car agressively but not abusively will result in the 13.2 - 13.4 second range. If you insist on 12.7 as the norm for Skylines then to compare apples to apples, we would have to go to every tuner magazine for every make and model car on earth and use their best numbers. Then we would have Skylines at 12.7 in the 1/4, with vettes and cobras running 12.2-12.5. You end up with the same delta for arguements sake with little accomplished. What a pain in the buttocks! It is easier to look at the mainstream facts, see where a car ranks, then make your own plans for mods to get it to where you want.

The long of the short,... peace.

Al

Motorex uses R&T number on their site. Why test a stock GT-R? :)

If you want to low 1/4 mile times, then at least don't use the ET to calculate hp. :)

Oh well, as long as there are cool cars out there I am happy.

I can't wait to get to Japan in December. Hopefully it won't take me too long to find a reasonably priced early model R34. Then the mods can begin! Hopefully I can find an SCCA type club in Japan, where they let giajin race! ;)

Later,

Al

in how much can you buy a gtr 34 in japan?

My opinion- I love GTR's, but everything else is blah, I'd rather an Alfa Romeo 156 V6 or JTS 2.0 than a non-GTR (In Italy that is a MUCH cheaper option) and feel the GTA is superior to teh GTR, of course the GTR has a shit-load of after-market support in Japan, UK, NZ or Australia, but here in Italy, I have plenty of options for my Alfa. So my point is.........That it is strictly a regional thing:cool:

can't argue with your point of view there Jimmy, it really does come down to a regional thing