# Impressive By Anyones Standards



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

9.78 in a road car on lowmounts ....
Is There A New Worlds Fastest Low Mount Gtr? - Skylines Australia

Probably downhill with a tailwind , not on a real track .


----------



## Mr. Keets (Jan 7, 2006)

Geez Glenn...downhill, tailwind, real track. WTF?

Willowbank raceway in Queensland is an ANDRA sanctioned track. No mention of track conditions, but if you wanted to stand behind your statement you could do a little searching or ring ANDRA. This car is a weapon...and still 2.6 litres


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Im fully aware of the vehicle and the track....
Thanks


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Mr. Keets said:


> Geez Glenn...downhill, tailwind, real track. WTF?
> 
> Willowbank raceway in Queensland is an ANDRA sanctioned track. No mention of track conditions, but if you wanted to stand behind your statement you could do a little searching or ring ANDRA. This car is a weapon...and still 2.6 litres


You'll find it was a tongue in cheek comment, I won't say anymore as there seem to be many cans of worms that are opened so easily here!


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

That is a seriously fast car, by anyones standards.
And, its not a drag car, but a real car......


----------



## Mr. Keets (Jan 7, 2006)

arrr Sarcasm...I probably need the smiley face next to it. Damn internet. 
For those who havent seen it

Light tune 32 being passed...early in development

Prior to the Tsukuba from "Ignition" DVD


----------



## shanef (Jun 8, 2006)

its for sale too

maybe some1 from the UK mite snap it up so theres atlerast 1 tough all round car there


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

No worries Mr Keets, you need to have read all the digs at downunder drag times to understand the comment ....


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Guess he is on GTRS turbos and a shot of NOS it would be good for 900bhp


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Dunno, last time I read about that car it was on some kind on N1's...
mid 400's at the wheels...


----------



## Moelders (Jul 7, 2006)

I believe they currently have GT2860 -5 "Customised" Turbos in that car.
No details on exactly how they were customised. 

No NOS...

In a story for Ignition DVD when the car was in Japan for the 2007 Tsukuba Time Attack I believe it dyno'd at around the 700whp mark, but apparently that was higher than what it dyno'd in Australia before going to Japan. 

Hopefully I have gotten all that info correct. Just going off what I remember reading on SAU forums, and watching on Ignition DVD some time back!

Cheers,


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Initially when it was reviewed in ummm Zoom or HPI, it had N1's and was making 400awks.
It ran 10.2.
Most likely is running bigger hairdryers as it says 450 awks now.

Japanese dyno's read higher , because the horse's are smaller in japan.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

As said, they have GT2850R-5s on it now - and it made in the mid 400wkw area on race gas etc. On the Japanese dyno it made around 700whp, but I don't know if I'd say that Japanese dynos read high or Oz ones just read stupidly low. Is 520kw @ wheels that shocking for a GTR doing 9.7s on circuit tires?


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Wasnt it on road tires, 
Definatley not slicks.
If it ran 10.2 with 400 (which is about right) it should run 9.78 with 460 or so.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Interesting that Joe Kyle can't do faster than ~10.3 with >500kw @ wheels then!


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

how in ****-all do you make 700whp with 2860-5s???

If there's a way, I will find it! Race gas? Straight toluene ought to serve just as well


----------



## maxspd (May 31, 2007)

Im pretty sure he runs hks gt-rs turbos.slightly modified. NOT 2860-5's! . He is going to a big single setup now. So you can relax kismet.. Havent seen anyone make 700hp with 2860 yet.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

maxspd said:


> Im pretty sure he runs hks gt-rs turbos.slightly modified.


Clipped GTRS Turbos and a shot of NOX is the most lightly combo


----------



## gibson (Feb 21, 2005)

So will they be going back to Japan again??? .. they did do well once all the wheels where pointing in the wright direction. Alignment


----------



## Moelders (Jul 7, 2006)

Well actually, from Mark's (co-owner of the car) post on SAU forums he says the Garret equivalent to the HKS 2530 - ie -5. No mention of GT-RS anywhere...
The car is 1380kg, so that helps.
As to getting 700whp from those turbos? That's what it came up on a Japanese dyno. Apparently it was quite a bit higher than it read on the Aus dyno, but don't know exactly by how much. 
I have never read any mention of using NOS on that car. From all reports it was run in the exact same setup that it had when it ran at a Time Attack circuit meet in Sydney. I could be wrong, but I don't believe they have ever used NOS on that car?

As for if it will return to Japan, as they have it up for sale it seems unlikely. I believe they are working on another project with an R34 GT-R now... Should be very interesting to see how it goes! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

On the ignition DVD I'm pretty sure the owner himself basically said GT2860-5s. Definitely not GT-RS or GT2871Rs, and definitely no NOS. 

I will check it tonight - but ignoring dyno results... it ran 9.7 @ 143mph, people can decide what they think it would make to get a 1380kg R32 GTR down the 1/4 that fast.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

right, that's it. **** turbo shuffle, I'm installing GT-RS turbos.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

kismetcapitan said:


> right, that's it. **** turbo shuffle, I'm installing GT-RS turbos.


Why would you do that when you already have the same turbos as the fastest low mount turbo GTR in the world? I checked the build thread, they are GT2860-5s on this car... running race gas.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

since my turbos are near the end of their life anyways....I'll try it out. On the one hand, 2860-5s are rated for only 320bhp each, which makes a 700whp figure seem highly unlikely. But with about 80% toluene I should be well within race gas octane (although toluene burns with a slower flame front velocity, something I will have to map for), and with added water/meth injection and spraying the FMIC to cool it, maybe I can reproduce these results.

If I can make 666whp with my existing turbos I will be beside myself with happiness!!!

btw, what's this business about "clipped" turbos? Can someone explain that to me?


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Interesting that Joe Kyle can't do faster than ~10.3 with >500kw @ wheels then!


Yoda's car is full weight and I mean , nothing removed.
Still has a flash stereo.
Remember tho that the Au tracks are generally faster than ours too.
But yeah , Yoda should have dipped into the 9's with that much power.
Who knows ...


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

kismetcapitan said:


> btw, what's this business about "clipped" turbos? Can someone explain that to me?


The tip of the turbine wheel is cut back at a angle to allow the exhaust gas past without loosing energy by turning the turbo.
This allows turbos deliver more BHP than they were designed for, a pair of GTRS can make 800bhp but clipped 850bhp.
The downside is they are more laggy lower down the RPM range


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Basically what most call cut back blades.
Rarely used these days as there is more turbine options around so can just fit the right one in the first place.

Nice to see someone putting a bit of thought and talent in to optimising what they got rather than throwing a fortune at a car which makes it easy.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

SteveN said:


> Basically what most call cut back blades.
> Rarely used these days as there is more turbine options around so can just fit the right one in the first place.
> 
> Nice to see someone putting a bit of thought and talent in to optimising what they got rather than throwing a fortune at a car which makes it easy.


The biggest turbos that package in the standard position are GTRSs so you are stuck with making the max BHP with them
http://www.torquecars.com/tools/quarter-mile-time.php
The calculator est 850BHP for a GTR to do a 9 secs quarter mile so I doubt the 2530 claims without NOX

As you say more interesting than going the proven route of a big single or top mounts


----------



## Moelders (Jul 7, 2006)

^^ Well yeah, that site must be right cause it's on the internet I guess...

Because the car has no NOS, has GT2860 -5 turbos and did a 9second time according to all other evidence. The details of the car can be read on the link originally posted on SAU and linked by GTR-Glenn straight from the owner of the car! 

But anyway... now the comment from Glenn 
_"Probably downhill with a tailwind , not on a real track ." _makes so much more sense to me... being fairly new to the forum and all.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Don't know if you are suggesting that it really was on a dodgey track or not (sometimes humour etc is lost with text) but it is a real time on a proper strip. The car DOES run a Hollinger 6-speed box I believe, which will help a lot. The car will be light and is very very well set up and it will have been a near perfect run. 

In my opinion most people who set up twins on their GTRs go for outright response, and possibly don't make full use of the airflow capabilities of GT2860s etc. This car revs hard and makes a heap of power and torque, I think its very impressive.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Moelders said:


> ^^ Well yeah, that site must be right cause it's on the internet I guess...
> 
> Because the car has no NOS, has GT2860


GT2860RSs are closer too the HKSRSs than 2530s but they still will not get you a 9second run


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Errr how can you say that when it has run a 9??

These aren't speculation, these are facts:

1) The previous fastest low mount GTR was running twin HKS GTRS and did 9s
2) The new fastest low mount GTR runs GT2860-5s, which are incidentally about equivalent to GT2530s, definitely a lot closer to them than GT-RSs.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

well, there's driver skill that's a factor too - but I guess that's reflected in the 0-60ft times.

When my engine is finished breaking in, I will absolutely see the maximum possible that I can wring out of those turbos and report the results. As I said before, 120 octane fuel and meth injection can allow for advanced timing, but how much that, along with cooling the intercooler and every other trick and gimmick available(excepting NOS), can shift the efficiency island of the 2860-5 turbos remains to be seen.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> GT2860RSs are closer too the HKSRSs than 2530s but they still will not get you a 9second run


Are you saying you cant run a 9 in an R32 GTR with 2530's ?

Im handing you your foot.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

kismetcapitan said:


> well, there's driver skill that's a factor too - but I guess that's reflected in the 0-60ft times.
> 
> When my engine is finished breaking in, I will absolutely see the maximum possible that I can wring out of those turbos and report the results. As I said before, 120 octane fuel and meth injection can allow for advanced timing, but how much that, along with cooling the intercooler and every other trick and gimmick available(excepting NOS), can shift the efficiency island of the 2860-5 turbos remains to be seen.


What cams are you running? I'm still not 100% sure on how to relate compressor efficiency for a pair of twins to a single engine - but the sheer CFM than each GT2860-5 can flow is sufficient (if it were a big single) for a LOT of power.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Are you saying you cant run a 9 in an R32 GTR with 2530's ?
> 
> Im handing you your foot.



Yes they are a 650bhp turbo which will not get a GTR into the 9s without NOX


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

Lith said:


> What cams are you running? I'm still not 100% sure on how to relate compressor efficiency for a pair of twins to a single engine - but the sheer CFM than each GT2860-5 can flow is sufficient (if it were a big single) for a LOT of power.


Mild cams - Tomei Poncams in and ex. Someday I'll get around to building a head around huge cams.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Yes they are a 650bhp turbo which will not get a GTR into the 9s without NOX


LOL

Theres a car in NZ that runs 10.03 on road tires on shit nz tracks using 2530's no nos and its not the fastest in the world by a long shot.

Incidently my car makes more than 650hp on 2530's on 98 pump gas.
Hows that possible, and the turbo's are nowhere near maxed out.
And its not even a serious engine.

over 700 on c16 isnt impossible

In fact havnt I already given a link to a 9.78 on lowmount turbo's ?
Admittedly the exact spcification isnt crystal clear, but it DID run 10.2 in n1 turbo's


----------



## Raiju (May 18, 2008)

paul cawson said:


> The tip of the turbine wheel is cut back at a angle to allow the exhaust gas past without loosing energy by turning the turbo.
> This allows turbos deliver more BHP than they were designed for, a pair of GTRS can make 800bhp but clipped 850bhp.
> The downside is they are more laggy lower down the RPM range


Yep, and also eliminates blade tip resonation, which can result from high boost and will eventually cause the turbine tips to fail...sometimes catastrophically!!


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Basically what most call cut back blades.
> Rarely used these days as there is more turbine options around so can just fit the right one in the first place.


Also turbine flow and design technology is probably better now than it was 20 years ago.
My Gison Motorsport RS581 Lemans (off a real gibson motorsport GTR) were pretty severely cut back, but thats a 1989 design.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

so where does this "rated for 320bhp each" figure come from? (that 2860-5s are stated at in terms of specification)


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

kismetcapitan said:


> so where does this "rated for 320bhp each" figure come from? (that 2860-5s are stated at in terms of specification)



Garrett website IIRC. HERE.
Interestingly the website states "up to 360bhp each!!!"

TT


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Rated hp has been discussed in great lengths elsewhere on these forums,
Im POSITIVE you could get 700hp out of 2860r-5's / Im not saying you could slap them on an rb26 on 98 pump and make that, but a serious race engine on C16 or methanol would make that power with those turbo's.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

I think a better comparison for 2860r-5's would be the HKS 2540 not the HKS 2530s


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

paul cawson said:


> Yes they are a 650bhp turbo which will not get a GTR into the 9s without NOX


Extreemley narrow minded mate, I did't realise that all GTRs weighed the same or are set up the same, or are driven the same or have the same engine combination.

Never say "can't be done" to us downunderans, lol.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

I seem to remember the stage 1 RWD saff cossie (in full road trim) owned by a guy who worked for Hauser doing a 12 sec 1/4, so remember its not all about power, diff/axle/suspension all play a very vital roll.


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

Cant believe some people and their "its not possible" comments :blahblah:

Not possible in the sucky blinkered world most seem to live in maybe.



MIKEGTR said:


> I seem to remember the stage 1 RWD saff cossie (in full road trim) owned by a guy who worked for Hauser doing a 12 sec 1/4, so remember its not all about power, diff/axle/suspension all play a very vital roll.


11.9 with 270bhp in a normal weight Saff Cossie on 225/40x17 BFG drags I think it was.


----------



## MIKEGTR (Jul 8, 2005)

Yeah make you right


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Extreemley narrow minded mate, I did't realise that all GTRs weighed the same or are set up the same, or are driven the same or have the same engine combination.
> 
> Never say "can't be done" to us downunderans, lol.


From reading the original thread I know its a track car not set up for drag with a RB26 and its used on the road so not light enough to hit 9s with only 650 bhp. Its the 2530s I dont agree with, 9secs on low mounts is ok for me


----------



## zell (Nov 23, 2007)

eee... I thought you'd post some more nice girls pics 

Nice having sleeper style turbos, but I'm always pro top mount, it's nice to clearly see one or two hairdryers attached to your great engine :]


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> From reading the original thread I know its a track car not set up for drag with a RB26 and its used on the road so not light enough to hit 9s with only 650 bhp. Its the 2530s I dont agree with, 9secs on low mounts is ok for me


Its not on GT2530s - its on GT2860-5s, and on race gas.

Short turbo lesson.... turbos do not have a hp limiter on them. The suggested power rating is just that, a suggested one. They are an estimation worked on based on a few assumptions - say a given temperature on the day, a certain grade of fuel (presumeably ~98 RON octane), and other assumptions like that.

They (at least HKS and Garrett from my understand) pick the power level from roughly how much they expect they'd be able to make with a decent tune on the amount of air you'd move at the choke point at 1bar of boost. If you run C16, that "max" power level changes - if you run Methanol it changes even more. There are other things which can affect how much it can make for a given flow rating at a given boost level, and thats just at 1bar.

Now, the other thing that comes into it is the fact that most turbos "choke" at different flow levels at different boost levels. A GT2860-5 chokes at around 34lb/min at 1bar of boost - people often say you guestimate about 9.5hp per lb/min on a fairly typical pump gas setup which would give a single GT2860-5 the ability to flow 323hp at 1bar. Sounds pretty close so far?

Now the neat thing is, at 1.6 to 1.8bar the choke line is closer to 37lb/min - or 352hp. Suddenly the turbos go from being two 323hp turbos to two 352hp turbos (646hp up to 704hp) if you use the same calculations. If you take into account a particularly good engine/car setup and the fact that with C16 you can make in the area of 10% more power than pump gas with a similar setup, then you for sake of arguement end up with 704hp * 1.10 = 774hp.

If you take a couple of moments to let the old grey matter do a bit of work instead of just reacting, it all starts becoming vaguely feasible - aside from the obvious fact that the car has actually done a 9.7s run on those turbos.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> I think a better comparison for 2860r-5's would be the HKS 2540 not the HKS 2530s


Sigh ...
Best you go and read some more then.

Do you even read what others post ?

THE

CAR

RUNS

2860r-5

TURBOS 

AND 

HAS 

RUN 

A

9.78

Are you being deliberatly provocative or are you thick ?

Everyone else in the world thinks 2860r-5's are vertually IDENTICAL to 2530's...

What is the matter with you.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)




----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Lith said:


> Its not on GT2530s - its on GT2860-5s, and on race gas.
> 
> Short turbo lesson.... turbos do not have a hp limiter on them. The suggested power rating is just that, a suggested one. They are an estimation worked on based on a few assumptions - say a given temperature on the day, a certain grade of fuel (presumeably ~98 RON octane), and other assumptions like that.
> 
> ...


In a perfect world without surge and EGT limits this could work


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Sigh ...
> 
> 
> Everyone else in the world thinks 2860r-5's are vertually IDENTICAL to 2530's...
> ...


:chuckle:

I was the first one on this thread to say 9s on low mounts was possible and know it has being done both by this car and dirt garage(HKS GTRS turbos)

However I will not accept it was done with 2530 sized turbos without Nos.
Information gets corrupted on forums, I believe this to be the case in this instance.
Or maybe they were just having a bit of fun to see who would fall for it


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> In a perfect world without surge and EGT limits this could work


Actually if you did a bit of research yourself or had a bit of a clue you'd have realised I made all very conservative estimates. I am not one of those eternal optimists, I look at most things with a critical eye. I actually don't know why I am wasting my breath on someone who sounds like they've read something in a magazine and treating it as gospel. 

If you decide to take up thinking or learning - here is a dyno plot for you to debunk. Its of an EVO running a "1000hp" rated T51R SPL with no nitrous, making 1166whp on 52psi. No dyno number fiddling, the car has cracked 180mph within the 1/4 mile.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

1166whp from 2.0 liters?? **** me!

Give me a month to break in my new engine (just got my first drive today and she's sweet), and as I am planning to swap turbos anyways, I will push the shit out of them and we'll see what we get on toluene and meth injection on the Dynapacks.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Lith said:


> Its of an EVO running a "1000hp" rated T51R SPL with no nitrous, making 1166whp on 52psi.


Well thats good info, It is quite possible a turbo could produce 10% more in perfect conditions that it is rated for so with turbine tip modifications that would get you to those results.

However for a pair of 2530 s to produce 850bhp would need a very large margin of error.


----------



## Dynamix (Nov 1, 2007)

paul cawson said:


> Well thats good info, It is quite possible a turbo could produce 10% more in perfect conditions that it is rated for so with turbine tip modifications that would get you to those results.
> 
> However for a pair of 2530 s to produce 850bhp would need a very large margin of error.


It's well known that trust turbo's can make a heap more power then they're rated to, same with hks. Seeing they're modified 2530's, i dont see any reason why they wouldn't make the quoted 650 ~ 700hp. I talked to one of the owners of this car about 2 years ago on a massive cruise for about an hour, had a bit of a squirt agaisnt it in my r32 gtr and it left me for dead back then.. both owners who both drive the car are very experienced racers so i see no reason to doubt the times or power figues, this car to us is like the mines r34 gtr to the japaense..


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> However for a pair of 2530 s to produce 850bhp would need a very large margin of error.


Well thats true, but given it has never been claimed to make 850hp that isn't relevant to the discussion  Its been on different dynos and it was never given a power figure that high. 

You'll also find that 1166hp @ wheels is more than 10% more than 1000hp 

KismetCapitan- it will be good to see what yours does on a Dynapack pushed hard. There are guys pushing over 560whp using GT2530s on pump gas with them here so will be good to see. That EVO is an absolute monster, chassis been retired because they can't really harness the power that nicely in a short wheelbase AWD and the drivetrain parts available to them. Funnily enough American tuners have claimed "The worlds most powerful EVO" several times between then and now and still none of them have reached that figure or the times/trap speeds DOCILE have run haha


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Lith said:


> Well thats true, but given it has never been claimed to make 850hp that isn't relevant to the discussion  Its been on different dynos and it was never given a power figure that high.


:thumbsup: And can we then drop the 9second quarter mile because a 700bhp mid weight GTR will never run that fast


----------



## Moelders (Jul 7, 2006)

Actually, rereading through the owner of the cars' post on SAU he mentions the Japanese dyno actually read 800whp on the car. 
He seems to feel it was reading too high for his car, which he states has not been run in the current tune state on any other dyno. 
However, the facts are - It has GT2860 -5 Turbos (modified). It has done a 9 second 1/4 mile pass (copy of the timeslip has been uploaded to the SAU post), and not that there is any reason to doubt these guys who have run a 59 second lap at Tsukuba on the first try at the track...

Seems your argument stems from this website that says it needs more HP to do said time on the 1/4 with the weight it carries. I would think there are a lot of other factors involved with car setups etc. that could make massive variables to the times possible?

Anyway, clearly you have made up your mind that despite all the available evidence to the contrary, you will put all your faith in the web page and simply state "Can't be done, didn't happen".


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Moelders said:


> Actually, rereading through the owner of the cars' post on SAU he mentions the Japanese dyno actually read 800whp on the car.
> He seems to feel it was reading too high for his car, which he states has not been run in the current tune state on any other dyno.
> However, the facts are - It has GT2860 -5 Turbos (modified). It has done a 9 second 1/4 mile pass (copy of the timeslip has been uploaded to the SAU post), and not that there is any reason to doubt these guys who have run a 59 second lap at Tsukuba on the first try at the track...


The thing is about that dyno run (if you have seen the Ignition DVD on it, look at the dyno screen) they have done something a lot of the Japanese outfits do which is display the measured power to the left, then estimated engine power to the right. The "800hp" was the right hand one and was probably subject to around 15% multiplication - pretty sure the left hand figure was under 700hp. I must remember to have a look at it tonight, if no one else does before hand. The thing to remember about Oz dynos is they tend to read about 10% lower than virtually everyone elses.

In regards to Paul Cawsons posts, I'm not going to waste any more time there - I don't see why to talk anyone here out of it, its the kind of attitude which allows us colonies down south keep acquiring and holding world records :clap:


----------



## Moelders (Jul 7, 2006)

Ah, got ya. The 800hp figure was the est. fly wheel hp. 

I knew I had remembered them saying something about 700whp on the DVD. 

cheers! :thumbsup:


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> And can we then drop the 9second quarter mile because a 700bhp mid weight GTR will never run that fast


Your like a 12 year old that always has to have the last word arnt you....
You just completely ignore what others say , and contradict them dispite all the posts confirming what it has done.
Please dont add anymore posts to this thread, I find your undermining of what they have achieved to be offensive.


----------



## Dynamix (Nov 1, 2007)

paul cawson said:


> :thumbsup: And can we then drop the 9second quarter mile because a 700bhp mid weight GTR will never run that fast


Fully stripped out r32, carbon fibre doors, carbon fibre boot carbon fibre bonnet, carbon tailshaft, full built tomei rb26 with dry sump, custom chromoly cage, lexan side windows, hollinger sequential gearbox, side exit exhaust..

It's not really that hard to believe.









































































All taken from buildup on the sponsors website here; Hi Octane Racing - GTR News

Old Ignition DVD feature here; YouTube - Hi octane R32 GTR Ignition DVD

Board Message the 9 second timeslip..

Back then it was making 430+awkw and had a ppg 5 speed dog box..


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Your like a 12 year old that always has to have the last word arnt you....
> You just completely ignore what others say , and contradict them dispite all the posts confirming what it has done.
> Please dont add anymore posts to this thread, I find your undermining of what they have achieved to be offensive.


It would be quite clear to anyone else reading this thread that I am not putting down the efforts of the tuners involved, far from it I like the use of turbos that most of us could use on our road cars.
As posted below the BHP was wrong and should read 800 bhp which fits all the estimates. So if you do not like being contradicted go post on a site which is more on your wave length, or dont post at all.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

**** me, that is the Holy Grail of R32s.

I now have a whole new level of enhancement to work towards. Ohlins. Dry sump. Twin brake master cylinders. I haven't been this much in love since I met my wife!!


----------



## Dynamix (Nov 1, 2007)

kismetcapitan said:


> **** me, that is the Holy Grail of R32s.
> 
> I now have a whole new level of enhancement to work towards. Ohlins. Dry sump. Twin brake master cylinders. I haven't been this much in love since I met my wife!!


I'm pretty sure its for sale.. They're building an all out r34 so they can modify it much more and run in time attack style events and take it to tsukuba, the R34 will have a 3L motor, custom cage, sunline racing carbon wide body kit, carbon dash, carbon doors, boot, bonnet, brembo racing 6 pots and 4 pots ect...

The 32 could have alot more done to it (areo aids, diff's, more weight reduction ect) but they're keeping it that way so they can keep competing in the classes of racing they use it for here and not to break rules..


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Nice photos  I had tried to find some so that anyone questioning the setup could see the extent of the development of the car. Will be awesome to see how the R34 comes out, no doubt they were inspired and learned some stuff going to Japan.


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

for sale?? my god, I should really think about buying that car.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

OK I just had a look at the High Octane DVD again, the Japanese dyno read the power as 680wps on race gas with a side exist exhaust etc - full race car mode. I doubt most people running GT2860-5s would have their cars set up in such a state so its quite believeable to me. 

The "estimated flywheel" power was 794ps.

Edit: For those unit conversion challenged thats 671whp or estimated 783bhp


----------



## Dynamix (Nov 1, 2007)

Lith said:


> Nice photos  I had tried to find some so that anyone questioning the setup could see the extent of the development of the car. Will be awesome to see how the R34 comes out, no doubt they were inspired and learned some stuff going to Japan.


They learn't a hell of alot when they went to tsukuba with the r32. I think the time they ran was excellent seeing they're in a foreign country, a totally different track thats worlds apart from there home track, couldn't get the tyre's they wanted, had to pretty much set up the car for that track with limited time and use and a pretty small budget compared with most other tuners.. On a side note they had the quickest speed out of everyone on the back straight..

This time around they're getting serious with the r34 gt-r taking everything they've learned with the r32 and building an all out monster. They have also purchased an r35 gt-r and use that in tarmac rallys, hill sprits and time attack. Should be very interesting to see what they can do...


----------



## kismetcapitan (Nov 25, 2005)

so theoretically at least, I could possibly hit 666whp, or at least 666 crank hp 

coolbeans, I need to order a drum of toluene for the upcoming dyno runs in a month or so!


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Clipped GTRS Turbos and a shot of NOX is the most lightly combo





> The calculator est 850BHP for a GTR to do a 9 secs quarter mile so I doubt the 2530 claims without NOX





> GT2860RSs are closer too the HKSRSs than 2530s but they still will not get you a 9second run





> Yes they are a 650bhp turbo which will not get a GTR into the 9s without NOX





> I think a better comparison for 2860r-5's would be the HKS 2540 not the HKS 2530s





> From reading the original thread I know its a track car not set up for drag with a RB26 and its used on the road so not light enough to hit 9s with only 650 bhp. Its the 2530s I dont agree with, 9secs on low mounts is ok for me





> However I will not accept it was done with 2530 sized turbos without Nos.
> Information gets corrupted on forums, I believe this to be the case in this instance.





> And can we then drop the 9second quarter mile because a 700bhp mid weight GTR will never run that fast


No one gives a toss whether you belive it or not ok, every single post by you has been answered by telling you what the car has and what it has been done , still youi are basically calling them liars.

No one knows what nox is , presumably its what idiots think the abreviation for nitrous oxide is ....

If you knew half as much as you think , you would know the japs were ruuning 9's with 2530's with NO nos ten years ago on road tires.

Maybe you should post on forums where people want to listen to to the ranting of an uninformed idiot ?

You would be ideal for SDU ...

Like I have already said, if you bothered cleaening your glasses, theres a road car in NZ right now that runs 10.03 on 2530's with no nos (nox to you) do you think this car might run a 9 on a good track in Oz ?

Or have you already desided it cant be done and are preparing some more of your ranting to contradict what has happened ?


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> No one knows what nox is , presumably its what idiots think the abreviation for nitrous oxide is ....


NOX is the chemical term for nitrogen oxides. Just me and a few chemists think this.
NOS is a firm that sell NOX kits for cars. Fan boys soon mixed the two up after the film too fast too furious.



GT-R Glenn said:


> If you knew half as much as you think , you would know the japs were ruuning 9's with 2530's with NO nos ten years ago on road tires.


This is 100% BS but at least I wont get accused of being anti Australian tuning scene in saying so.



GT-R Glenn said:


> Maybe you should post on forums where people want to listen to to the ranting of an uninformed idiot ?
> 
> You would be ideal for SDU ...


I do go on and like that site, there is some good info to be had. 
And also some respected tuners who would not give a blagger a easy ride:blahblah:.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Hi Paul,
Maybe Im being harse but the way I read your post's is like this
Every single one is contradicting or arguing with the previous post
You say something , someone corrects you, 
then you post again arguing whith what has been said, and someone corrects you.
Ad nausium

BS Really ?
Do a search on japanese drag raing records ....

Maybe you were too close to the stuff when you were at chemistry school ...last time I looked it was n20 or , if I could remember the ascii code N little 2 0 / never seen it wrtitten as NOZ inmy life.

But thanks anyway .

Ill let Mark know he's full opf shit, well because some guy in England knows more about his car than he does....
And says it cant be done , therefore it cant be ..

PS thanks for ruining the thread


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

High Performance Imports

Under where is says NITROUS / what does it say ??





> Fan boys soon mixed the two up after the film too fast too furious



LOL

Now thats a good one to end on.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Paul.........Nitrous Oxide = N20 not NOX, possibly you are a fast and furious fan yourself?? lol.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

NOx actually represents any exclusive combination of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrous Oxide fits under that umbrella, but so does Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) - not to mention Nitrogen Monoxide (NO) which are both just pollutants which aren't really all that handy to anyone, well at least those who want to have a laugh or make their car go faster.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Seeing as we are all discussing cars and racing we are not taling about NOX in general, we are talking about N20 and it seems that paul thinks NOS sells NOX kits which of course they don't, they sell N20 kits.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

The whole purpose of the thread was to kind of celebrate the outstanding effort of Marks gtr.
It kind of went pear shaped.


----------



## Irish GTR (Apr 23, 2007)

GT-R Glenn said:


> The whole purpose of the thread was to kind of celebrate the outstanding effort of Marks gtr.
> It kind of went pear shaped.



Thats the purpose,Yeah?

I have to sign up and register to that forum link you posted origianly just to read and see it.**** that,couldnt be arsed now.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> High Performance Imports
> 
> Under where is says NITROUS / what does it say ??



R32 Skyline GT-R RB26DETT 2568cc GCG x 2 No Yoko A048R 
9.78 1.54 143 Wllbnk Mark Berry Hi-Octane/CnJ 

No mention of the turbo size either




GT-R Glenn said:


> [
> 
> LOL
> 
> Now thats a good one to end on.


Well Ok so I got the chemical symbols crossed, but at least it shows I am not pretending to be a expert by looking everything up on the web


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

> Under where is says NITROUS / what does it say ??


Nope its say 

NO

You have copied everything and misread the question, 

Again.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> Nope its say
> 
> NO
> 
> ...


I got that bit but with custom 2540 sized Garrett turbos he would not need nitrous.
I said he would with 2860s (HKS 2530 sized turbos) as you correctly pointed out. 

So to the bit you have misread, all we have to go on for turbo size is the abbreviation GCG X2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbrnwY5lTKM


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

GT-R Glenn said:


> THE
> 
> CAR
> 
> ...


Now there are some suspects here from the GCG site that would do the job 2540 sized Garretts 2860s too

GCG Turbochargers - Home of XTR & Performance


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

paul cawson,

Champ, please wake the hell up and come back to reality. (If indeed you were ever here to begin with.)

I would love it if you were to answer two, simple questions for me and if the answer to the first one was a 'Yes' or a 'No' that'd be great.

Q/ Do you understand or have any comprehension of just how offensive, insulting and unfounded your claims, statements of 'fact' and outright bullshit are to the owners of this car who have achieved so much in the face of detractors such as yourself?

A/ _____________________


Q/ What have you achieved that can hold a candle to this incredible GTR?

A/ _____________________

I'm no mind reader, but I'm willing to bet that the answer to question 1 is "No" and question 2 will be "Sweet Fark All", but I leave it in your hands.

Grow up, you juvenile and for the love of everything with a turbocharger (or two), follow Bruce Lee's advice in your sig.


----------



## R.I.P.S NZ (May 7, 2004)

Paul, Just because you aint done it or just because you 'think' something can't be done, doesn't make it so.

Check this.............

YouTube - RIPS RB30 GTS4 10.2 @ 134mph www.ripsltd.com

and tell me why you think its not running a totally stock N/A internal motor with a stock RB20det exhaust manifold, T3/T4 turbo at 1.5 bar, pump gas, stock gearbox, stock suspension, full exhaust, street tyres etc.

Obviously because it will be hard for you to comprehend its actually possible to do 10.2 with this spec, it must be bullshit right?

Rob


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

2rismo said:


> paul cawson,
> 
> Champ, please wake the hell up and come back to reality. (If indeed you were ever here to begin with.)


Pointless post mate, hit me with some good facts to why you think a GTR could run a 9s quarter mile with 2530 turbos or dont bother at all.
Or better still show me a link to another mid weight GTR who has run a non nitros sub 10 second run with 2530s


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

R.I.P.S NZ said:


> Paul, Just because you aint done it or just because you 'think' something can't be done, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Check this.............
> 
> ...


Rob its a RB30, and a T3/T4 could be a GT35R turbo? or another as you do not post the full spec, could be modified?And its a 10.2 not a 9.7 etc etc


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> Pointless post mate, hit me with some good facts to why you think a GTR could run a 9s quarter mile with 2530 turbos or dont bother at all.
> Or better still show me a link to another mid weight GTR who has run a non nitros sub 10 second run with 2530s


Q/ Do you understand or have any comprehension of just how offensive, insulting and unfounded your claims, statements of 'fact' and outright bullshit are to the owners of this car who have achieved so much in the face of detractors such as yourself?

A/ _____________________


Q/ What have you achieved that can hold a candle to this incredible GTR?

A/ _____________________


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

And while we're on the subject (and because you're so incredibly gifted at determining maximum possible performances), what's the quickest an internally standard (in every way), standard ceramic turbo (non-highflowed or modified in any way) RB25DET powered R33 gtst could run. Remember, pump fuel, no additives, 13psi, radial tyres, circuit suspension setup, stock 5-speed manual, single plate clutch, no hidden tricks, makes 190kW (255hp) at the rears.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> Pointless post mate, hit me with some good facts to why you think a GTR could run a 9s quarter mile with 2530 turbos or dont bother at all.


You never answered in such a way as to reflect acknowledgement or understanding of the big post I wrote up backing up the fact that this GTR could be (obviously it is) on paper making the power to run a 9. No point doing it again, because clearly you're not too good at understanding technical explanations.



paul cawson said:


> Or better still show me a link to another mid weight GTR who has run a non nitros sub 10 second run with 2530s


You know the tricky thing about claiming a world first, is its usually because no one else has achieved it yet. Just because no one else has done it before, doesn't mean its impossible - it means someone has achieved an outstanding accomplishment. Once apon a time no one in the UK had achieved a sub 10s run in a GTR, never meant it was possible because clearly there are now!!



2rismo said:


> And while we're on the subject (and because you're so incredibly gifted at determining maximum possible performances), what's the quickest an internally standard (in every way), standard ceramic turbo (non-highflowed or modified in any way) RB25DET powered R33 gtst could run. Remember, pump fuel, no additives, 13psi, radial tyres, circuit suspension setup, stock 5-speed manual, single plate clutch, no hidden tricks, makes 190kW (255hp) at the rears.


14.0 @ 98mph


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

Lith said:


> 14.0 @ 98mph


Golden! Hahaha...


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

And as for facts, there are no good or bad facts - only what is real. My favourite calculator of horsepower uses the weight of the car and the terminal speed and I came up with 630 - 634hp (at the engine) as being required to run the ET and MPH no matter which way I looked at it. I'm trying to be nice here, mate, but if you can't grasp a simple concept like this, perhaps you shouldn't comment. You certainly don't seem appropriately equipped or experienced to offer anything of merit and you refuse to reply with anything that would offer some credibility to your claims. Your even replying to this post will likely prove fruitless as no-one here places any stock in anything you have to offer.

Here's a bit of super-simple drag racing maths for ya:

Them having done it is *>* you saying they haven't.

Period.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

2rismo said:


> Q/ Do you understand or have any comprehension of just how offensive, insulting and unfounded your claims, statements of 'fact' and outright bullshit are to the owners of this car who have achieved so much in the face of detractors such as yourself?


A/ I have being speaking with the owner of the car about turbo spec and will let you know ___________________


Q/ What have you achieved that can hold a candle to this incredible GTR?

A/ A hard one to quantify,_I built a RB26 engine from a scrap one for £800UK pounds it ran a mid 11 second run. I have another on the way which I hope runs a sub 10 second run with low mount turbos 
Thus the original Interest in this thread. __________________

Quid pro quo now answer my questions


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

Another thought to add. Paul Diemar drove the stock stroke (2.6L) 32 GTR (TWO06L) from Dirt Garage to a string of 10.3 second passes in the mid-130mph zone and the car was about as heavy as most street GTR's (not a mid-weight as you like to call this one) and with a synchro-mesh box. And, I'm sure big Paulie won't mind me saying so, the runs were handicapped by his 'healthy' stature and build. (1474kg without the driver - 1580kg with!)

626hp at all four wheels too.

And what turbos you might ask? Unmodified 2530's.


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

_Mid 11's hey? Damn! That's super impressive. Wow! Can you please tell us how you managed an incredible feat such as this before someone comes along and shouts you down._

Incidentally, you haven't asked any questions. You're confusing yourself now, champ.


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Lith said:


> You never answered in such a way as to reflect acknowledgement or understanding of the big post I wrote up backing up the fact that this GTR could be (obviously it is) on paper making the power to run a 9. No point doing it again, because clearly you're not too good at understanding technical explanations.


Did you never hear of the choke limit and over speeding of turbos.


----------



## 2rismo (Jun 29, 2006)

paul cawson said:


> Did you never hear of the choke limit and over speeding of turbos.


Quoted for your benefit from much earlier in this thread:



Lith said:


> Its not on GT2530s - its on GT2860-5s, and on race gas.
> 
> Short turbo lesson.... turbos do not have a hp limiter on them. The suggested power rating is just that, a suggested one. They are an estimation worked on based on a few assumptions - say a given temperature on the day, a certain grade of fuel (presumeably ~98 RON octane), and other assumptions like that.
> 
> ...


----------



## DiRTgarage (Oct 5, 2007)

paul cawson said:


> Pointless post mate, hit me with some good facts to why you think a GTR could run a 9s quarter mile with 2530 turbos or dont bother at all.
> Or better still show me a link to another mid weight GTR who has run a non nitros sub 10 second run with 2530s


I thought id post some real world facts from the horses chaff chewer...

We could have run a 9 with the 2530's...simple...

As you could see my 1580kg car and driver with a synchro box ran 10.3's at will...If i lightened the car and ran a dogbox i would have easily ran a high 9.

The car also used a 'garden variety' Apexi Power FC with no launch control or 'two-step'...so just free revving it off the line with no boost prior to launch. Also the engine was all Nissan except for pistons and camshafts.

I also ran several high 9's with HKS GT-RS low-mounts and would have had the ability to run as fast, if not faster than the Berry/Neuman car had i had as lighter car and changed the synchro box to a better suited dog engagement. 

I was also only using 3 gears to run 9's to keep the car under 140MPH (highest MPH 139.7) due to ANDRA regs requiring a parachute over that speed. So id keep the car in 3rd and the RPM under 9100rpm to reduce the terminal speed.

All my times have been run on street radials with a best 60' of 1.41. My drag racing experience is limited to 31 full runs and im by no means a gun driver

BTW Paul...my wife runs 11's with 320KW and 60's the car in the 1.6's...something for you to go after.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

DiRTgarage said:


> I thought id post some real world facts from the horses chaff chewer...


Haha I don't expect that to change much. Its folks like these I guess that keep the world amusing: The Flat-out Truth


----------



## Mr. Keets (Jan 7, 2006)

_"I am clever because I know the cause of my ignorance..." ~ Bruce Lee" _

Really????

Pal your fu(king this thread. Let it go and just admit that there are people who have more talent than you believe.

I dont think anyone has mentioned driver skill yet. That 32 looks like quite a handful.


----------



## GT-R Glenn (Nov 9, 2002)

Paul are you also hard of hearing ?
The Japs ran sub 10's on 2530's years ago.
Please dont post on this thread anymore, like I have already asked.
You have nothing constructive to add.
Clearly you have made up your mind it cant be done and have now done everything possible to justify your opinions.
No one gives a flying **** about your opinion anymore 
ok.


----------



## Lith (Oct 5, 2006)

Now I know why some forums have an "ignore user" feature, shame this one doesn't appear to


----------



## paul cawson (Jul 3, 2003)

Ok my last post on this, fitting 2530 turbos to a GTR is one of the most common turbo modifications they are fitted to thousands of cars.
It is said a low 10 can nearly be done on a standard set up with 2530s and a uprated clutch.
So how many GTRs do you see each weekend running low tens or even close too.

So put it down to good tuning, or good driving or maybe a little pixie dust its still a little strange why only two cars have done it.


----------



## DiRTgarage (Oct 5, 2007)

GT-R Glenn said:


> The Japs ran sub 10's on 2530's years ago.


please back this statement up with facts...

i know a few people in the Jap drag scene who disagree with this statement.

as far as they are concerned the fastest 2530 power GTR on the planet is ours. This is coming direct from Mines in Japan.


----------

