RE: The Nissan GT-R in 2008: Time For Tea
Discussion
TwinExit said:
Firstly, this A45 from your link has not demonstrated that sort of output, let alone has it been extensively tested on the road with the 95-98 RON fuel that punters will expect to use.
Do you have any clue about detonation & knock thresholds of mainstream unleaded fuels? Typically the torque output needed for 200 hp per litre is around 450 - 500 lbs/ft unless the engine can rev to something silly like 9000 rpm.
Without any supplemental charge cooling (methanol / alcohol injection) , the realistic limits for torque would be 400 lbs/ft on a 3 litre 6 cyl when using solely UK supermarket pump fuel.
Ok, some facts. Today's A45 AMG makes 376hp and 350lbft from its 2.0 litre engine, giving a specific output of 188hp/litre and 175 lbft/litre.Do you have any clue about detonation & knock thresholds of mainstream unleaded fuels? Typically the torque output needed for 200 hp per litre is around 450 - 500 lbs/ft unless the engine can rev to something silly like 9000 rpm.
Without any supplemental charge cooling (methanol / alcohol injection) , the realistic limits for torque would be 400 lbs/ft on a 3 litre 6 cyl when using solely UK supermarket pump fuel.
If you simply scaled the engine up from four to six cylinders and 2.0 to 3.0 litres, you would get 564hp and 525 lbft, with technology in production today. I cannot at all see how the 400 lbft you mention is any kind of a limit for a 3.0 engine, it seems a much lower specific torque than engines we already have.
Secondly, I would observe that production engines' specific output has generally climbed over time, this is an area of ongoing research and development, leading to steady increases. Downsizing and turbocharging has driven the pace of improvement faster in the past decade.
Given that, it doesn't seem that surprising to anticipate Mercedes making a further 6% improvement in specific output, reaching the 200hp/litre mark next year. Bear in mind that if they are talking to the press about 2019, next year's model, they almost certainly already have it doing the numbers on the bench already.
Now, I agree that sometimes manufacturers announce something and then quietly fail to deliver. Mazda kept promising the Americans diesel engines, but never actually delivered any because they couldn't meet emissions regulations. (VW, of course, had a different 'solution'). And sometimes the trend of progress stalls - single-core CPU performance steadily improved for decades, but then hit a wall. But in general, the most likely thing is for trends to continue; if you want to persuade someone that it won't, the onus is on you to demonstrate the reason(s) that mean that there is a brick wall approaching, that the future will not be a continuation of the past. Simply stating arbitrary limits that are well below what has already been achieved isn't very persuasive.
TwinExit said:
This is just all talk and no evidence to demonstrate how so. Reducing displacement from 3.8 to 3.0 will not always save any weight (in fact some applications a smaller displacement can weigh more), the engine block has to be durable to tolerate sustained high BMEP, and all GTRs since 1989 have utilised 4WD to put the torque/power down on the roads. The extra weight is a small penalty for the benefits high output/reliable powertrain and traction.
You are applying eurocentric Lotus fantasy land philosophy on a breed of car that has always opposed that approach, and have time and time again proven to work effectively in the real world.
I totally agree that it's all talk, it's a realistic goal I'd like to see Nissan aim for, I don't have a master plan to lay out. Of course the GTR should stay 4wd, it's a big part of what it stands for and a key part of its all-weather, all-road performance. The BNR34 was only 1500ish kilos with an iron-block engine and 4wd, so I'm only suggesting the next version should get back to that sort of weight, not turning it into some sort of Elise rival. Again, there has been a lot of weight-saving innovation in the decade since the R35 came out, it's surely realistic to suggest that making use of some of these techniques would provide an opportunity to reduce weight. And it's pretty much a given that making a car smaller will make it lighter.You are applying eurocentric Lotus fantasy land philosophy on a breed of car that has always opposed that approach, and have time and time again proven to work effectively in the real world.
To suggest that a desire to make a car better to drive by reducing weight is 'eurocentric' is frankly nonsense. Every manufacturer in the world is assiduously working to minimize their car's weight. For example, here is that well-known European company, Mazda: "The key to making our cars fun to drive was to make them lighter." https://www.insidemazda.co.uk/2016/03/24/the-gram-...
and rival Toyota: http://thenewswheel.com/toyota-receives-altair-enl...
The roads in Japan are typically quite narrow and twisty, probably more so than the European average, especially the many mountain roads, so small and light is at least as relevant for them as in the UK.
I completely agree that the R35 is very quick. However, when replacing a model it is normal to look for ways to improve it; given how excellent the current model is, the biggest opportunity for improvement with an all-new platform is to rethink it for lighter weight. Moreover, a number of owners above have mentioned the R35 being heavy on consumables such as tyres and brakes; weight reduction is the obvious path to mitigate these costs.
It's no fantasy, but rather very well understood that lighter = quicker, just look at how ballast is used to balance racing cars; making the new GTR moderately smaller and lighter than today's would only make it more fun and usable in 'the real world', especially on narrower roads.
Edited by samoht on Wednesday 25th April 20:05
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.
But not really because the schedules are pretty much the same. The small, immediate service is around £150 to £200 because it's little more than an oil change. So it's a small part of the overall running costs.Got me thinking about 4 banger power; didn’t Mitsubishi manage a 440 bhp Lancer Evo, warrantied and off the shelf, 14 year’s ago? Makes the latest gen of 4 pot heros look a bit off colour.
Much time spent with the R35 and a motoring great for sure. Big power conversions add little as do many mods. Go stock or near to it, with latest gen power at the most.
Much time spent with the R35 and a motoring great for sure. Big power conversions add little as do many mods. Go stock or near to it, with latest gen power at the most.
Alpinestars said:
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.
But not really because the schedules are pretty much the same. The small, immediate service is around £150 to £200 because it's little more than an oil change. So it's a small part of the overall running costs.Given the overall running costs of the car, £350 is neither here not there in the grand scheme of things.
Zed Ed said:
Got me thinking about 4 banger power; didn’t Mitsubishi manage a 440 bhp Lancer Evo, warrantied and off the shelf, 14 year’s ago? Makes the latest gen of 4 pot heros look a bit off colour.
Much time spent with the R35 and a motoring great for sure. Big power conversions add little as do many mods. Go stock or near to it, with latest gen power at the most.
Are you still in W@@@@@@d? You had a grey one from memory? Much time spent with the R35 and a motoring great for sure. Big power conversions add little as do many mods. Go stock or near to it, with latest gen power at the most.
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.
But not really because the schedules are pretty much the same. The small, immediate service is around £150 to £200 because it's little more than an oil change. So it's a small part of the overall running costs.Given the overall running costs of the car, £350 is neither here not there in the grand scheme of things.
I know they're not considered to have a nice engine note, but I bought mine with a rather exotic Kreissieg exhaust, which screams. Old people hate it.
Issues are: known to throw a leg out, rust and gearbox will eat 4th. You need the arse of a 10yo boy to be comfortable in the seat.
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
snuffy said:
Alpinestars said:
Costs have broadly been covered. What made them "high" was the 6 month service schedule, which turned into 12 months on later cars, so not as expensive to service.
But not really because the schedules are pretty much the same. The small, immediate service is around £150 to £200 because it's little more than an oil change. So it's a small part of the overall running costs.Given the overall running costs of the car, £350 is neither here not there in the grand scheme of things.
jimPH said:
Most CBA cars now follow the DBA service plan, mine does anyway.
I know they're not considered to have a nice engine note, but I bought mine with a rather exotic Kreissieg exhaust, which screams. Old people hate it.
My CBA (2011 car, MY10) also is only serviced every 12 months (I do around 6k miles a year). I know they're not considered to have a nice engine note, but I bought mine with a rather exotic Kreissieg exhaust, which screams. Old people hate it.
I've a Russ Fellows exhaust on mine - now that turns head !
samoht said:
Ok, some facts. Today's A45 AMG makes 376hp and 350lbft from its 2.0 litre engine, giving a specific output of 188hp/litre and 175 lbft/litre.
If you simply scaled the engine up from four to six cylinders and 2.0 to 3.0 litres, you would get 564hp and 525 lbft, with technology in production today. I cannot at all see how the 400 lbft you mention is any kind of a limit for a 3.0 engine, it seems a much lower specific torque than engines we already have.
You cannot scale up an engine like that, a 3ltr 600 hp motor will generate more heat upon itself and raises IATs far more than a 400 hp 2 ltr motor would - you have introduced increase risk in engine knock by doing so.If you simply scaled the engine up from four to six cylinders and 2.0 to 3.0 litres, you would get 564hp and 525 lbft, with technology in production today. I cannot at all see how the 400 lbft you mention is any kind of a limit for a 3.0 engine, it seems a much lower specific torque than engines we already have.
On a cold day, on a generous chassis dyno, 99RON pump fuel fed 3 litre turbo motor has peaked around 500-550 horses give or take make/model and modifications - this is done at the OWNERS RISK.
When you build thousands of engines, they need to deliver close to the rated power using the available consumer grade fuels (95/98 RON) and in various climates - also they need to be backed by warranty.
One example of high tq/hp from a stock 3.0 is that BMW had to fit a water injection cooling system on the M4 GTS to safely sustain 493 horsepower.
samoht said:
I totally agree that it's all talk, it's a realistic goal I'd like to see Nissan aim for, I don't have a master plan to lay out. Of course the GTR should stay 4wd, it's a big part of what it stands for and a key part of its all-weather, all-road performance. The BNR34 was only 1500ish kilos with an iron-block engine and 4wd, so I'm only suggesting the next version should get back to that sort of weight, not turning it into some sort of Elise rival. Again, there has been a lot of weight-saving innovation in the decade since the R35 came out, it's surely realistic to suggest that making use of some of these techniques would provide an opportunity to reduce weight. And it's pretty much a given that making a car smaller will make it lighter.
To suggest that a desire to make a car better to drive by reducing weight is 'eurocentric' is frankly nonsense. Every manufacturer in the world is assiduously working to minimize their car's weight. For example, here is that well-known European company, Mazda: "The key to making our cars fun to drive was to make them lighter." https://www.insidemazda.co.uk/2016/03/24/the-gram-...
and rival Toyota: http://thenewswheel.com/toyota-receives-altair-enl...
The roads in Japan are typically quite narrow and twisty, probably more so than the European average, especially the many mountain roads, so small and light is at least as relevant for them as in the UK.
I completely agree that the R35 is very quick. However, when replacing a model it is normal to look for ways to improve it; given how excellent the current model is, the biggest opportunity for improvement with an all-new platform is to rethink it for lighter weight. Moreover, a number of owners above have mentioned the R35 being heavy on consumables such as tyres and brakes; weight reduction is the obvious path to mitigate these costs.
It's no fantasy, but rather very well understood that lighter = quicker, just look at how ballast is used to balance racing cars; making the new GTR moderately smaller and lighter than today's would only make it more fun and usable in 'the real world', especially on narrower roads.
The R34 GTR's were closer to 1600 kgs with a full tank, the R33's were a touch over that - very heavy performance cars of the day yet one of the most capable on the streets of Japan or on English roads - despite all the 'light is better@###' thinking that goes around on PH.To suggest that a desire to make a car better to drive by reducing weight is 'eurocentric' is frankly nonsense. Every manufacturer in the world is assiduously working to minimize their car's weight. For example, here is that well-known European company, Mazda: "The key to making our cars fun to drive was to make them lighter." https://www.insidemazda.co.uk/2016/03/24/the-gram-...
and rival Toyota: http://thenewswheel.com/toyota-receives-altair-enl...
The roads in Japan are typically quite narrow and twisty, probably more so than the European average, especially the many mountain roads, so small and light is at least as relevant for them as in the UK.
I completely agree that the R35 is very quick. However, when replacing a model it is normal to look for ways to improve it; given how excellent the current model is, the biggest opportunity for improvement with an all-new platform is to rethink it for lighter weight. Moreover, a number of owners above have mentioned the R35 being heavy on consumables such as tyres and brakes; weight reduction is the obvious path to mitigate these costs.
It's no fantasy, but rather very well understood that lighter = quicker, just look at how ballast is used to balance racing cars; making the new GTR moderately smaller and lighter than today's would only make it more fun and usable in 'the real world', especially on narrower roads.
I think the problem is you come across as someone with big ideas but very little life experience on other cars/people beyond your Mazda - not everyone likes cramped lightweight cars, nor do they want to be driving on narrower roads.
Regardless of whether you think it is more 'fun and usable', that is entirely your own subjective opinion and does not apply to others.
Edited by TwinExit on Thursday 26th April 12:07
Edited by TwinExit on Thursday 26th April 12:10
yonex said:
Swampy1982 said:
Bloke at work had one, used it as a daily, was really generous in taking people out in it and sharing the car.
Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he s
t his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners...
M3 stock brakes are barely adequate for fast road use.Loved the videos, Harris at his best, but what happened to the m3's brakes, Chris genuinely looked like he s
t his pants at the end of the bot lap. Also, was it just me or could you hear "car parking change" clunking about under braking and in the corners... TwinExit said:
The R34 GTR's were closer to 1600 kgs with a full tank, the R33's were a touch over that - very heavy performance cars of the day yet one of the most capable despite all the 'light is better@###' thinking that goes around on PH.
I think the problem is you come across as someone with big ideas but very little life experience on other cars/people beyond your Mazda - not everyone likes cramped lightweight cars, nor do they want to be driving on narrower roads.
Regardless of whether you think it is more 'fun and usable', that is entirely your own subjective opinion and does not apply to others.
The R34 was meant to be heavier as it was a large GT cruiser. It was the Silvas that were the light weight sports cars, however even the S15 was getting a bit porky at 1200KG (still a cracking car though, owned a 2002 S15 back in Oz, would be suicidal to drive here with the amount it rains though). I think the problem is you come across as someone with big ideas but very little life experience on other cars/people beyond your Mazda - not everyone likes cramped lightweight cars, nor do they want to be driving on narrower roads.
Regardless of whether you think it is more 'fun and usable', that is entirely your own subjective opinion and does not apply to others.
What set the R34 GT-R apart from its contemporaries was the fact it had a top notch (at the time) AWD system. If you preferred a straight up twin turbo 6cyl RWD, the 300zx would fit the bill better. Sadly all 3 were killed by the Asian Financial Crisis of the 90's and new emissions regulations of 2002.
Regarding running costs of R35, I have had my 2009 black edition Seven Valley Motors tuned running over 600bhp for 3.5 years now.
I have done approx 20,000 miles and it's used 365 days a year with total reliability (61,000 on the clock) has oil change every 6 months with full service at independent specialist every 12 months costing £500-£650, the dearer service was when the 4 wheel alignment was done in the service.
I replaced front discs and pads when car was purchased with upgraded options from USA, and they are still good, only other expense was a new set of tyres costing £1,000 about a year ago and they still have approx 5mm tread, tyres are slightly bigger as recommended for a tuned GTR, a new battery was fitted 6 months ago.
I do not understand how anyone can say these cars are expensive to maintain, in fact the opposite is true compared with the alternative cars I was considering buying, the Audi R8 or Ferrari 355... and my GTR is a lot faster
I have done approx 20,000 miles and it's used 365 days a year with total reliability (61,000 on the clock) has oil change every 6 months with full service at independent specialist every 12 months costing £500-£650, the dearer service was when the 4 wheel alignment was done in the service.
I replaced front discs and pads when car was purchased with upgraded options from USA, and they are still good, only other expense was a new set of tyres costing £1,000 about a year ago and they still have approx 5mm tread, tyres are slightly bigger as recommended for a tuned GTR, a new battery was fitted 6 months ago.
I do not understand how anyone can say these cars are expensive to maintain, in fact the opposite is true compared with the alternative cars I was considering buying, the Audi R8 or Ferrari 355... and my GTR is a lot faster
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff