RE: TOKYO 2007: THE SKY'S THE LIMIT
Discussion
Er, there is the small issue of import duty and VAT (add about 30% to Japanese cost) and the bigger issue of ESVA, which means someone has to crash test and SVA the model for you and agree to rent that licence to you whilst you import the car...
Having said that, if it is true the official UK cars won't come until March 2009, i.e. a year later than everywhere else, it may be worthwhile an import company doing it.
96eight, are you handling your own import?
Having said that, if it is true the official UK cars won't come until March 2009, i.e. a year later than everywhere else, it may be worthwhile an import company doing it.
96eight, are you handling your own import?
looks a awesome car by the pictures however ill be looking forward to the Nismo boys in japan to get their hands on it and see what the can do with it just like the R34 Z Tune they did a awesome motor im sure the real japs nuts will bring something out special but as per usual well never see over here in the UK
Razo said:
Al 450 said:
jking said:
The engine is designed to cope with 1.6g lateral acceleration....it can do this for about 5-8 seconds before the oil pressure drops too much....it would have no problem with 1.3g continious lateral acceleration, but I suspect normal road tyres would struggle to deliver this for too long!!!
If the car is capable of so much lateral G then shouldn't the engine be dry sumped?"Other technical innovations include a thermostatically controlled air-cooled type oil cooler system, for greater cooling efficiency. The engine oil is cooled by oil cooler system and in extreme cornering - of which the Nissan GT-R is easily capable - a scavenger pump maintains turbocharger oil flow. A collector tank inside the fuel tank always stores enough fuel to maintain fuel flow even under strong g forces. The oil collecting structure inside the engine is optimized by a lateral wet and dry sump system, which helps secure stable oil collecting and oil pressure in various driving scenes.The engines, like the transmissions, are all hand made. One craftsman hand-assembles the entire engine. The dedicated engine builders work in a special Nissan GT-R 'clean room' area of Nissan's Yokohama plant."
I reccomend having a read through the GTR press site as it contains a very detailed overview of all the cars features and innovations,
http://press.nissan-global.com/PRESSKIT/NISSANGTR/...
I am very impressed with what they have done with this car and would love to own it.
Oh yes, that Nissan website shows they have kept this idea too...
"The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
"The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
jking said:
Oh yes, that Nissan website shows they have kept this idea too...
"The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
Have you driven a near final spec version of the car or even a car with the engine in?"The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
Was wanting to know if it feels turbo charged or if they have managed to keep the turbo influence discreet.
I am slightly disappointed by the 7000rpm redline. A big attraction of the RB26 was its ability to achieve high rpm and set it apart from most turbo engines.
jking said:
Oh yes, that Nissan website shows they have kept this idea too...
"The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
I hope so! I've owned a couple of GT-Rs and the reason my R33 needed frequent bottom end rebuilds was due to the lack of dry-sumping (and frequent airfield track days on slicks!)."The original scheme had the right hand compressor (feeding though the right hand intercooler) feeding the left hand bank of cylinders and vice versa via the intake primary pipes crossing over in the vee....it is hard to say whether they have kept that scheme from the pictures".
Why not dry sump.....well, it is more expensive and adds more weight and makes engine bay packing worse due to larger number of scavenge rotors, seperate oil tank etc. A lot of effort was made to get the oil system to work ok at extreme angles, and it does (there are a few little tricks in there).....!
After my first rebuild, I had the Trust deep sump fitted with the recessed pick up, but that still didn't save it.
Since then, I have only been really confident tracking cars with a dry sump and the lack of one on the new GT-Rs spec sheet, along with its colossal weight, are my main worries about taking delivery.
Is the new oil delivery system up to sustained track use?
Godzilla said:
Is the new oil delivery system up to sustained track use?
No - all those laps of the 'Ring were done with a fake car, it was all CG.The first time an owner takes one on a trackday they'll be generating so much more lateral G than the professional 'Ring racers that I doubt it will last the first airfield corner.
Trommel said:
Godzilla said:
Is the new oil delivery system up to sustained track use?
No - all those laps of the 'Ring were done with a fake car, it was all CG.The first time an owner takes one on a trackday they'll be generating so much more lateral G than the professional 'Ring racers that I doubt it will last the first airfield corner.
The R32 was the most successful Group A racer of its time and the R33 was also extensively tested at the 'Ring. Didn't stop mine grabbing its bearings despite meticulous oil-level checking.
How many GT-Rs have you owned? My question was directed at someone who claims to have some insider knowledge.
From the first page, our recommendation (when I was at my old employer in Northampton) was to make the intercoolers bigger....not to help with cooling the air anymore as I'm sure the new coolers meet the heat rejection targets, but to prevent shrouding of the main radiator!
With regards to revs, the engine rev limit should be continious 7600, max intermitant 7800rpm. It should make 90% of Pk power at the max engine speed
I only drove a prototype based on the current production Skyline car at a place in Norfork in 2003 (engine was only 440Bhp). The higher output spec (can't say how much is as higher than initial production varient) were running whilst we were still involved in the project.
Oil system should have no probs with track usage from both an oil handling point of view (maintaining pressure and minimising aeration), and temperature....the oil cooler was sized for track use and un-limited VMax speed...hence, can isn't limited to 155 mph
Oh yes, engine is optimised in terms of weight and structure to achieve a target bhp more than where it is now....however, it is not "over designed" for silly Bhp so will fall apart if modified too much
With regards to revs, the engine rev limit should be continious 7600, max intermitant 7800rpm. It should make 90% of Pk power at the max engine speed
I only drove a prototype based on the current production Skyline car at a place in Norfork in 2003 (engine was only 440Bhp). The higher output spec (can't say how much is as higher than initial production varient) were running whilst we were still involved in the project.
Oil system should have no probs with track usage from both an oil handling point of view (maintaining pressure and minimising aeration), and temperature....the oil cooler was sized for track use and un-limited VMax speed...hence, can isn't limited to 155 mph
Oh yes, engine is optimised in terms of weight and structure to achieve a target bhp more than where it is now....however, it is not "over designed" for silly Bhp so will fall apart if modified too much
Trommel said:
Godzilla said:
How many GT-Rs have you owned?
Three. Get back to the other forum. 
I mentioned airfields because that is where you can generally get the longest sustained "g", but you knew that...
I'll probably still take delivery of my GT-R (when it eventually arrives in the UK
), but at 1740kg v 1400kg, I'll keep my Z06 for serious track time.carpervert said:
They wanted to lap the Nürburgring quicker than a Porsche 911 Turbo on one hand and provide respectable fuel economy in the other.
The result is 473bhp, 3.8-litre V6, twin-turbo, 4-wheel drive and a claimed 0-60mph of 3.5 seconds and 194mph.
So what is the fuel economy ?The result is 473bhp, 3.8-litre V6, twin-turbo, 4-wheel drive and a claimed 0-60mph of 3.5 seconds and 194mph.
I got to admit I do really like the sound of this car, but ....
I hope they're market figures for keeping production going are JDM based. We've been here twice before with Japanese high performance cars targetting European marques (one Ferrari, the other Porsche) and on both occasions sales figures were so poor that the former (Honda NSX) hardly sold, even after a £20K price cut, and the latter (Mazda RX7 FD3) was dropped from Europe after only a couple of years. I know friends of mine in the US point out that car badge elitism is not a big thing over there, but that's amoungst middle Americans driving saloons and exec cars. I believe with sports cars they are just as snobbish over there.
I hope they're market figures for keeping production going are JDM based. We've been here twice before with Japanese high performance cars targetting European marques (one Ferrari, the other Porsche) and on both occasions sales figures were so poor that the former (Honda NSX) hardly sold, even after a £20K price cut, and the latter (Mazda RX7 FD3) was dropped from Europe after only a couple of years. I know friends of mine in the US point out that car badge elitism is not a big thing over there, but that's amoungst middle Americans driving saloons and exec cars. I believe with sports cars they are just as snobbish over there.
Love the look of this car and would love to own one but I'm a bit confused by some of the stats that have been bandied about.
Perhaps somebody could explain how this car which has the same amount of power as a 911 turbo (473bhp) but less torque (according to the Autocar article last week) and weighs around 200kg more than the 911 is capable of out-accelerating the 911 turbo to 60 miles an hour? Bearing in mind that with 4wd and a rear-mounted engine the 911 turbo should excel at the 0-60 discipline.
I'm sure that it's more than capable round the 'ring and due to it's exceptionally low cd, capable of a very high top speed: but this 0-60 in 3.5s, has me completely baffled. Stil even if it takes 4 or 4.5s, it's still damn quick and I'd still love one!
Perhaps somebody could explain how this car which has the same amount of power as a 911 turbo (473bhp) but less torque (according to the Autocar article last week) and weighs around 200kg more than the 911 is capable of out-accelerating the 911 turbo to 60 miles an hour? Bearing in mind that with 4wd and a rear-mounted engine the 911 turbo should excel at the 0-60 discipline.
I'm sure that it's more than capable round the 'ring and due to it's exceptionally low cd, capable of a very high top speed: but this 0-60 in 3.5s, has me completely baffled. Stil even if it takes 4 or 4.5s, it's still damn quick and I'd still love one!
For a naturally aspirated engine the power is correct using an ISO correction formula to a standard set of atmospheric conditions (temp, pressure, humidity). However, on a turbocharged or supercharged engine this does not apply as the temperature into the engine (inlet manifold) will be dependant on how the in-vehicle intercooler performs. The power curve is homologated on a dyno, so the plenum temperature is controlled irrespective of the compressor out temperatures, but is roughly based on an assumed intercooler efficiency. Some manufactures blatantly cheat on this, and control the plenum temp to the same temp as the intake air, which obviously would give an intercooler efficiency of (an impossible) 100%. A more realistic efficiency may be in the order of 70 - 80%. In Nissans case they are conservative on the bed (Porsche may set plenum temp at 40 deg C, Nissan 70 deg C; Nissan may have homologated on 95 Ron too, Porsche would use 98 Ron), and hence in the real world (e.g. 20 deg C ambient, with plenum in of 40 deg C) the engine would produce significantly more power than it was homologated at.
So in answer to your questions, if the acceleration figures are real for the GTR then the engine was making consideraly more than stated power when tested.
So in answer to your questions, if the acceleration figures are real for the GTR then the engine was making consideraly more than stated power when tested.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff