# Is Stage 5 really worth the extra cost?



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

It's been interesting reading the Vbox results from the different cars, currently it looks like the Stage 5 cars are approx .5 sec quicker from 0-60 and 1 sec quicker from 0-100 over a stage 4. Now to my mind that doesn't seem a huge improvement or particularly good value for money. I'm not knocking the tuners as I know how much these bits cost, but as a consumer does it really matter that much that I can go .5 sec quicker to 60 mph, how often do you use that extra performance and does it make that much difference to your driving pleasure, either on a track or even less likely on the road. The difference in costs between a Stage 4 and 5 are considerable, about £10K for engine mods and then you probably need gearbox mods such as circlips plus clutch discs. Adam is still looking for turbos which give the added power but retain stock spool, the fantastic spool and instant torque are one of the joys of owning a GTR, this will inevitably suffer with bigger turbos. I had an interesting conversation with a GTR owner recently, and although he didn't say it, all the indications were pointing towards questioning whether he had made the correct decision and was now regretting the very expensive upgrade.


----------



## JamieP (Jun 5, 2006)

At 100mph you travel 146 ft per second, so that stage 5 car is 146ft ahead of the stage 4 car at 100mph, IMO that's a huge improvement.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Short answer is yes.

What Jamie said!!!

0.5 to 60 is percentage wise enormous!


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

JamieP said:


> At 100mph you travel 146 ft per second, so that stage 5 car is 146ft ahead of the stage 4 car at 100mph, IMO that's a huge improvement.


Agree,its a big difference,if you have doubts don't spend the money.

For many the thrill of modifying,is as much fun as the results.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

I think it depends on how you use your car. If you like taking on drag strips, then yes. But on the sprint tracks I think stage 4.5 is more than enough.

Was at Snetterton on Saturday for the MLR sprint series and there wasnt hardly anything between mine (600 hp) and Georges (900 hp). Again If I was to go up against it on a strip, It would be a whitewash

Im going to go for recored turbos, cooler and suspension mods, possibly the litchfield setup, and leave it at that.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> Short answer is yes.
> 
> What Jamie said!!!
> 
> 0.5 to 60 is percentage wise enormous!


Percentage wise yes, but can you feel .5 sec on the road? When you did your Vbox runs I'm guessing some were .5sec slower than others for various reasons but I bet you had to check the data to see which was a good run.


----------



## GTaaaaaarrrrrr! (May 4, 2006)

FLYNN said:


> I think it depends on how you use your car. If you like taking on drag strips, then yes. But on the sprint tracks I think stage 4.5 is more than enough.
> 
> Was at Snetterton on Saturday for the MLR sprint series and there wasnt hardly anything between mine (600 hp) and Georges (900 hp). Again If I was to go up against it on a strip, It would be a whitewash
> 
> Im going to go for recored turbos, cooler and suspension mods, possibly the litchfield setup, and leave it at that.


Very kind of you to say so Pat, but the fact was that every time I went down a second, you did the same :chairshot Your car was quicker on the day but I think that was mainly down to the driver. The spool out of tight turns certainly isn't as good but if you can get the car pointing straight it will be quicker - until the next corner etc.........

I think your planned route is an excellent option  Did you get any runs at SCD?


----------



## bobel (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm seriously thinking of going stage 5 at the end of this year, had brakes and transmission cooler to get out of the way first and their both almost done now, but my only concerned is added lag, I use the car on a very tight technical track where Elise's and Exiges are the default choice so any added lag would be a major minus, just wondering do any of the stage 5 lads find it an issue? The be honest the main drive behind stage 5 for me is maximum safety and reliability on track that a forged engine and higher efficiency turbo would give at around 600-700bhp.


----------



## Takamo (Oct 18, 2005)

Personally anything over stage 4 is a waste of time unless your doing motorway miles where you can let it loose at to end or otherwise I've spanked a couple of stage 5s in my stage 4 on the drag strip, the stage 5 has lag compared to the stage 4 which still uses standard turbos so you have literally no lag


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

GTaaaaaarrrrrr! said:


> Very kind of you to say so Pat, but the fact was that every time I went down a second, you did the same :chairshot Your car was quicker on the day but I think that was mainly down to the driver. The spool out of tight turns certainly isn't as good but if you can get the car pointing straight it will be quicker - until the next corner etc.........
> 
> I think your planned route is an excellent option  Did you get any runs at SCD?


I did a 400 mile round trip to do two runs :chairshot

Too many beers the night before. So did two runs and buggered off home.

Managed 187 mph. Glad to be home though, its been a long weekend


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

JamieP said:


> At 100mph you travel 146 ft per second, so that stage 5 car is 146ft ahead of the stage 4 car at 100mph, IMO that's a huge improvement.


Jamie that may be the case but I've just done some calculations assuming the acceleration is constant which is obviously not true in real life situations, the Stage 5 will get to 100mph only 20m before a stage 4 car.


----------



## Turbotwo (Jan 28, 2011)

My Thoughts on stage 5.. http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/1775120-post20.html


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

This is the question I am asking myself.... and keep thinking that its too much to spend. Surely stage 4.5 is the best option then? Its what I am leaning to if I go for more power.


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

Stage 5 has more grunt across the whole rev range, it is noticeably quicker than stage 4 on the road and track. However the bang for buck curve starts flattening after stage 4, if you accept that then it is defiantly worth it! :smokin:


----------



## Glgtr (May 21, 2012)

I'm also in the same boat, but I can't see that stage 4.5 is a good choice.
By not using a turbo from stage 5 you are backing yourself into a corner where you can't go much further.
And we all know we can't stop modding.

The compromise is stage 4.5 with the 850 or 900 turbos.
However at that point you probably have too much lag.

Tough decisions!

Anyone else who has moved from 4 to 5 fancy helping out here?


----------



## S14 (Jan 4, 2012)

Stage 4 with downpipes plus sort your brakes/eibach arb's and you have the perfect car imo


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

IMO stage 4 is the best value for money upgrade you can have done but for pure excitement and power it's got to be stage 5. The turbos provide stock like spool so you always have the power ready for you. If the roads are not bone dry then 0-100 will be roughly the same as a stage 4 if not a bit slower but after that it's in a league of its own as was proved at SCD. There's no sign on the car slowing even when it's doing 190+ getting on to its 205mph rev limit! On dry tarmac I've been getting 0-100 in roughly 5.4 seconds but just need to confirm it with a vbox.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

barry P. said:


> Percentage wise yes, but can you feel .5 sec on the road? When you did your Vbox runs I'm guessing some were .5sec slower than others for various reasons but I bet you had to check the data to see which was a good run.


Barry that's a bald point but the answer is no.

For every half second slower run I do, so would a stage 4. The fastest times are nearly always determined by the 0-30, but the car always feels faster than stage 4 because the rate of acceleration doesn't drop off. After 30 it continues to feel like it's still pulling over 1g when the stage 4 and less starts to wain.

Even without the perfect start, the sustained acceleration is what makes it feel consistently faster at all points.

Takamo, if you are beating stage 5s wth a stage 4, either they are ill cars or just poorly driven.

Big turbo cars do not suffer from lag in drag races, it's why the 8 second gtrs have bigger laggier turbos. Typically they lose out o small turbo cars on twisty tracks, not on drag strips.


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

S14 said:


> Stage 4 with downpipes plus sort your brakes/eibach arb's and you have the perfect car imo


Yes I agree - the stage 4.5's were no faster than stage 4's today as far as I know.

David


----------



## Henry 145 (Jul 15, 2009)

S14 said:


> Stage 4 with downpipes plus sort your brakes/eibach arb's and you have the perfect car imo


Sounds like my car!


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Glgtr said:


> I'm also in the same boat, but I can't see that stage 4.5 is a good choice.
> *By not using a turbo from stage 5 you are backing yourself into a corner where you can't go much further.*And we all know we can't stop modding.
> 
> The compromise is stage 4.5 with the 850 or 900 turbos.
> ...


Thats the point for me  to try and stop myself :nervous:


----------



## S14 (Jan 4, 2012)

Henry 145 said:


> Sounds like my car!


And mine!

Must say the eibach arb's have made a real difference to the general feel and rightness of the car. Feels so much more planted and the turn in seems sharper. I'd rate it as best buck upgrade so far!


----------



## willgts (Jul 17, 2004)

I think the answer to the question is with the individual. From a value only perspective, then stop at Stage 1.

Yes the 0-60 and 0-100 times will be very close between Stage 4 and Stage 5 as you are only dealing with the 5-6 second range, which 1. Is bloody fast as it is. 2. Is not the best way to demonstrate the difference between the packages and 3. It takes big jumps in traction or power to show even a small difference in 0-60 and 0-100 times when at these levels.

Having just come from the SCD day with a 1 mile straight, I would pull away in front of a Stage 4 from the word go and then that distance would constantly grow until I hit rev limiter at 196-7mph. (Unless I left the handbrake on - Doh!) But the point is, in the 'real world' there is a big difference between the two as you would expect.

As someone who has gone from Stage 4 to Stage 5, would I rather take my money back and go back to Stage 4? Not a chance.

Just my view, but hope its helps.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

the answer to this is always in the cost. depending on what £5k or the £15k you spend means to you.


----------



## willgts (Jul 17, 2004)

Impossible said:


> the answer to this is always in the cost. depending on what £5k or the £15k you spend means to you.


As the yanks say.... This.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

on this subject iv thought about upgrading but doing it cheap does anyone think this a bad idea.

Upgrade rods, FMIC, clutch, circlips and just run 750 tflb torque.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Thinking the same thing buddy. For me, keeping stock spool is most important


----------



## willgts (Jul 17, 2004)

Impossible said:


> on this subject iv thought about upgrading but doing it cheap does anyone think this a bad idea.
> 
> Upgrade rods, FMIC, clutch, circlips and just run 750 tflb torque.


I'm glad you think that's cheap, haha.

That is basically my spec but with full Stage 5. I presume you are talking about not adding turbos to that? Which you would really want to if you are going to those lengths.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

FLYNN said:


> Thinking the same thing buddy. For me, keeping stock spool is most important


Well I cant tell any difference between stock spool and the spool on stage 5 turbos. Car drives like stock, only quicker


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

sorry meant to say "cheaper" lol

could always do turbo's later. a lot of peeps are doing turbo's then pistons etc later. I was thinking other way around.


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

Impossible said:


> on this subject iv thought about upgrading but doing it cheap does anyone think this a bad idea.
> 
> Upgrade rods, FMIC, clutch, circlips and just run 750 tflb torque.


750ftlbs is upgraded gear set territory if you want the car to remain on road and reliable.....


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

vxrcymru said:


> Well I cant tell any difference between stock spool and the spool on stage 5 turbos. Car drives like stock, only quicker


I tend to agree.

The dyno plot doesn't so I'm still chasing better spool on the dyno, but on the road it just seems to add more everywhere, I think it's probably because dynos are a fixed gear pull across the boost threshold whereas on the road, you are in the right gear for the speed and when you want response you plant your foot accordingly. In the lower ratios, the engine and road speed climbs so fast, you'd never spot the difference in the boost threshold because it traverses it so quickly, at which point you are just hanging on for dear life!


----------



## Vernonjones (Oct 23, 2012)

alloy said:


> 750ftlbs is upgraded gear set territory if you want the car to remain on road and reliable.....


Indeed.


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm running 750ftlbs on my car which I use everyday and it's running perfect.


----------



## alloy (Apr 29, 2005)

R35 Boxer said:


> I'm running 750ftlbs on my car which I use everyday and it's running perfect.


For how long now? The problem with 750ftlbs is you will strip 3rd and 4th in the end....


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I've not seen enough evidence to be able to say that with conviction.

I'm more worried about rods than drivetrain.

Plus, worst case scenario you kill the box, as I've said before, unless things go catastrophically wrong, you are mostly risking the parts you'd be paying to replace anyway, so why rush to replace them before they die? (other than the inconvenience of being caught out when you can't afford to be without the car.)


----------



## Vernonjones (Oct 23, 2012)

Yes that is the problem. Hence I'm PPG.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Fair enough.

I've been reading that there's a new ppg kit that might be less whiney. Personally I hold for that.

Straight cut gear whine on a GT would be really annoying.


----------



## Vernonjones (Oct 23, 2012)

Adamantium said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I've been reading that there's a new ppg kit that might be less whiney. Personally I hold for that.
> 
> Straight cut gear whine on a GT would be really annoying.



Or awesome depending on what you want out of the car!


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

I think the best mod for stage 5+ cars would be to remove the steering wheel to save weight.

You chaps only seem to want to go in a straight line anyway


----------



## Anders_R35 (Jul 20, 2011)

I'm going 1-6 gears, but waiting to see if less whiney gear set comes out first. In the mean time car will be mapped to 700lbft.


----------



## JamieP (Jun 5, 2006)

I'm so tempted to change all the gears and go more power/torque, it's just it drives like a stock car now, quiet when I want, smooth and easy gear changes, nice reliable power.

I just don't want to go to far and regret it like I did with my supra.


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

I've only had for two weeks/700 miles. Only time will tell but if anything does go wrong the cost of sorting the gears out then is not much more than doing them now.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

My car vs one of SVM's cars. I got off the line well and had some little heat in the R888's. Had him upto 100mph, then he pulls away......alot

Im on 1000cc injectors, intakes, ypipe. The rest is stock. Ive spent £1100 on the current mods. I think you could add a zero to that figure then double it and still not be close to what has been spent on the blue car

187 mph on mile straight. 600hp GTR - YouTube

Im not into drag racing, I honestly dont get it..., so the bigger turbos would definitely be wasted on me. I might be wrong, but anyone can plant there foot and keep it there. I did two runs on that day, then went home.

On a sprint track, you need to be fast out of the corners. Waiting for the big ass turbos to spool, you probably find your already braking for the next corner. Not for me.

Different strokes for different folks. It just took me £270 in fuel and a trip to north wales to figure out Im not a drag queen


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

I raced the blue svm car and there was about 7 car lengths between me and him at the half way point before he backed off for some reason.


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

Even after the runway event Stage 4 with Downpipes is great for me. For £10K extra to use twice a year to get more grunt on a runway isn't justifiable - I am sure I would love it if I did. I would, and am personally, going to do suspension next from Mr L and ARB and get to use them more of the time. As John M proved running 102 race fuel in a Stage 4 with Downpipes makes a chunk of difference the odd times you use it.

If I had the cash I would do both obviously haha!

Agree with above statement though that ultimately Stage One/Two is probably the best value from money.


----------



## Johnny G (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm in for downpipes as you know Rog - so it'll be good to see how we compare next time around, now that I've got my benchmark


----------



## johnhanton57 (May 2, 2009)

Adamantium said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I've been reading that there's a new ppg kit that might be less whiney. Personally I hold for that.
> 
> Straight cut gear whine on a GT would be really annoying.


Straight cut gears would not take the power . they are for efficiency only and with anything over 800 flbs you will strip them. Dont go there or it will effect your wallet


----------



## S14 (Jan 4, 2012)

I ran against 2 other svm650 cars with down pipes yesterday and mine is a stage 4 without d/p. One was basically neck and neck, the other one car length ahead. By that stage we were at speedo indicated 175 plus. So my conclusion is that the d/p aren't justified IMO unless you are going for stage 5 plus or for the sound. Performance increase will be minimal at stage 4 levels as Iain has always advocated. For the cost involved circa 1k I'd rAther spend on being able to control that power


----------



## ROG350Z (Jun 15, 2008)

S14 said:


> I ran against 2 other svm650 cars with down pipes yesterday and mine is a stage 4 without d/p. One was basically neck and neck, the other one car length ahead. By that stage we were at speedo indicated 175 plus. So my conclusion is that the d/p aren't justified IMO unless you are going for stage 5 plus or for the sound. Performance increase will be minimal at stage 4 levels as Iain has always advocated. For the cost involved circa 1k I'd rAther spend on being able to control that power


But the noise mmmmmmmmm haha - agree on power though it makes a small difference only.


----------



## bobel (Jul 26, 2010)

S14 said:


> I ran against 2 other svm650 cars with down pipes yesterday and mine is a stage 4 without d/p. One was basically neck and neck, the other one car length ahead. By that stage we were at speedo indicated 175 plus. So my conclusion is that the d/p aren't justified IMO unless you are going for stage 5 plus or for the sound. Performance increase will be minimal at stage 4 levels as Iain has always advocated. For the cost involved circa 1k I'd rAther spend on being able to control that power


My reason for going with the dp's was not power or noise but the fact that removing the cats is always good from a back pressure perspective and you will inevitably reduce the turbine temperatures which IMHO when running the stock turbos at the upper end of their efficency is no bad thing.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

bobel said:


> My reason for going with the dp's was not power or noise but the fact that removing the cats is always good from a back pressure perspective and you will inevitably reduce the turbine temperatures which IMHO when running the stock turbos at the upper end of their efficency is no bad thing.


My reasoning was similar, but down to heat... but the noise is fantastic, especially with silenced ypipe


----------



## Johnny G (Aug 10, 2012)

This time last week, I was so happy with the car. 
After Llanbedr, I'm still happy, but I think I might go Stage 4.5 in the summer.


----------



## johnhanton57 (May 2, 2009)

Johnny G said:


> This time last week, I was so happy with the car.
> After Llanbedr, I'm still happy, but I think I might go Stage 4.5 in the summer.


It will NEVER be enough


----------



## Protegimus (Aug 31, 2011)

Can't argue with the fact that the performance improvement of downpipes is more significant at the top end, but that difference is quite a bit more than you experienced during your runs.

For me the cost (around 3/4 of the figure mentioned) was worth it for the noise alone!
The guy that developed the McLaren MP4-12C exhaust said that around 60% of the feeling and enjoyment of driving a car comes from the noise it makes and I think it is a major contributor to the criticism the GT-R receives in terms of involvement.



S14 said:


> I ran against 2 other svm650 cars with down pipes yesterday and mine is a stage 4 without d/p. One was basically neck and neck, the other one car length ahead. By that stage we were at speedo indicated 175 plus. So my conclusion is that the d/p aren't justified IMO unless you are going for stage 5 plus or for the sound. Performance increase will be minimal at stage 4 levels as Iain has always advocated. For the cost involved circa 1k I'd rAther spend on being able to control that power


Stage 5, practicality - no, additional performance required - no, value for money - no. Would I have one? Absolutely.

Protegimus


----------



## Rich001 (Jul 13, 2008)

JamieP said:


> At 100mph you travel 146 ft per second, so that stage 5 car is 146ft ahead of the stage 4 car at 100mph, IMO that's a huge improvement.


Surely the stage 4 car is still covering ground in the second difference meaning stage 5 has covered roughly 146 ft (but more as it still accelerates) and stage 4 has covered 125 feet (more as still accelerating) the difference is more like 20-25 ft.

Its still faster though, and I imagine if feels a whole lot faster!:smokin:


----------



## Henry 145 (Jul 15, 2009)

Stage 4 with downpipes and bov's is the sweet spot for me - that combined with my brake and handling upgrades has given me the perfect balance - car is awesome on road and track and eats cars for fun - not sure where I would use the extra power than down the pub!

Next for me is wheels and maybe 2011 front and rear bumpers and Litchfields new front splitter


----------



## nova5 (Jan 16, 2011)

*Availability*



Henry 145 said:


> Stage 4 with downpipes and bov's is the sweet spot for me - that combined with my brake and handling upgrades has given me the perfect balance - car is awesome on road and track and eats cars for fun - not sure where I would use the extra power than down the pub!
> 
> Next for me is wheels and maybe 2011 front and rear bumpers and Litchfields new front splitter


Has anyone got any idea when the Litchfields front splitter will be available, I've emailed them before but didn't get a response, still says 'comming soon' on the website.


----------



## 64btzlhy (May 31, 2005)

Here's a thought. Why not stick with the OEM turbos with all the bolt ons then run E85 for racing drag or circuit. E85 is pretty close to full race fuel and it produces more power and torque throughout the whole rev range range. If you have 1000cc injectors already all you need is new fuel pumps and a map from Ben. Oh and you need to buy 5 gallon tins of E85. It's cheaper than new turbos and the engine will be even more responsive than on 99 Ron. I have a 99Ron and E85 map " on the fly " just so I can switch over easily at the petrol station.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

64btzlhy said:


> Here's a thought. Why not stick with the OEM turbos with all the bolt ons then run E85 for racing drag or circuit. E85 is pretty close to full race fuel and it produces more power and torque throughout the whole rev range range. If you have 1000cc injectors already all you need is new fuel pumps and a map from Ben. Oh and you need to buy 5 gallon tins of E85. It's cheaper than new turbos and the engine will be even more responsive than on 99 Ron. I have a 99Ron and E85 map " on the fly " just so I can switch over easily at the petrol station.


I personally dont like storing fuel at home, but whats to stop you from running the fuel AND stage 5


----------



## willgts (Jul 17, 2004)

grahamc said:


> I personally dont like storing fuel at home, but whats to stop you from running the fuel AND stage 5


:thumbsup:


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

grahamc said:


> I personally dont like storing fuel at home, but whats to stop you from running the fuel AND stage 5


Naughty but nice! 

What stage would a 1000hp be? 6?


----------



## 64btzlhy (May 31, 2005)

There is £90 of fuel stored in your tank at home ;-)


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

64btzlhy said:


> There is £90 of fuel stored in your tank at home ;-)


actually its around £25


----------



## B'have (Dec 28, 2011)

64btzlhy said:


> Here's a thought. Why not stick with the OEM turbos with all the bolt ons then run E85 for racing drag or circuit. E85 is pretty close to full race fuel and it produces more power and torque throughout the whole rev range range. If you have 1000cc injectors already all you need is new fuel pumps and a map from Ben. Oh and you need to buy 5 gallon tins of E85. It's cheaper than new turbos and the engine will be even more responsive than on 99 Ron. I have a 99Ron and E85 map " on the fly " just so I can switch over easily at the petrol station.


Same tank? Do you mix E85 with 99ron or drain the tank at the fuel station?


----------



## saucyboy (Nov 1, 2009)

Johnny G said:


> This time last week, I was so happy with the car.
> After Llanbedr, I'm still happy, but I think I might go Stage 4.5 in the summer.


Not racing you if you do that :chuckle: Only joking mate, at least you'll be able to see the difference by kickin my butt.


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

Anyone done a stage 4.5 with rods , would this not be nearly as good as a 5 with higher torque and no fear of bending the rods as you would all the time with stage 5 , would also be cheaper .

I'm thinking this as I have to take engine out to fit new diff and thought it would be a good idea to do rods and stage 4.5 at the same time , what you's think ?

What no. Would you call this 4.75 :smokin:


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

FLYNN said:


> I think it depends on how you use your car. If you like taking on drag strips, then yes. But on the sprint tracks I think stage 4.5 is more than enough.
> 
> Was at Snetterton on Saturday for the MLR sprint series and there wasnt hardly anything between mine (600 hp) and Georges (900 hp). Again If I was to go up against it on a strip, It would be a whitewash
> 
> Im going to go for recored turbos, cooler and suspension mods, possibly the litchfield setup, and leave it at that.


I think once you start going over 600bhp it becomes too much for the chassis to put the power down and have that perfect drivability out of corners when you compare to a 900bhp version. The car with 900bhp would be a rocket down the straight, but you will probably not be able to put the power down as easily and wouldnt be any quicker under braking or mid corner.

If you look at the Mines R34, it really was a well balanced car even though it had 650bhp it would often beat cars with much much more power as it was a carefully tuned package.

Japanese supercar owners only seem to care about huge power I dont know if thats for bragging rights down the local or an ego thing to have more power than the next man. More power is not always a good thing unless all you care about is 1/4 and then if you really want to have a serious crack at it you need to do all sorts of mods to make it a dedicated 1/4 car.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

Peter R35 Gt-R said:


> Anyone done a stage 4.5 with rods , would this not be nearly as good as a 5 with higher torque and no fear of bending the rods as you would all the time with stage 5 , would also be cheaper .
> 
> I'm thinking this as I have to take engine out to fit new diff and thought it would be a good idea to do rods and stage 4.5 at the same time , what you's think ?
> 
> What no. Would you call this 4.75 :smokin:



I'd say that a stage 4.5 with a built engine running 700ftlbs would be quicker than a stage 5 (If you can run that torque without the larger intercooler of course, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer this one). 

However, I wouldnt bother given from what I read its the torque that bends the rods, not a well mapped stage 4, 4.5 or 5 car which all run around 620ftlbs (seen as the safe limit). 

Also if you want to run higher torque e.g. 700ftlbs 
1. Traction then becomes a serious issue so to make the most of that grunt you would want to run a Syvecs ECU at 5k

2. The rod job even tho the engine is out would still cost you 4-5K, the main costs are the rods, opening and closing the engine, balancing and polishing. Not taking the engine in and out.

3. You would need to upgrade your clutch maybe straight away or it will certainly wear out a lot quicker 

4. You would also need to upgrade your circlips and probably 1st gear.

So all in all it would cost you at least an extra 13K (guesstimate) to run an extra 80-100ftlbs and make the most of it with the Syvecs.

I would just add the intercooler and go stage 5!

But as always speak to a reputable tuner to get accurate costs and advice...


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

rogerdavis said:


> I think once you start going over 600bhp it becomes too much for the chassis to put the power down and have that perfect drivability out of corners when you compare to a 900bhp version. The car with 900bhp would be a rocket down the straight, but you will probably not be able to put the power down as easily and wouldnt be any quicker under braking or mid corner.
> 
> If you look at the Mines R34, it really was a well balanced car even though it had 650bhp it would often beat cars with much much more power as it was a carefully tuned package.
> 
> Japanese supercar owners only seem to care about huge power I dont know if thats for bragging rights down the local or an ego thing to have more power than the next man. More power is not always a good thing unless all you care about is 1/4 and then if you really want to have a serious crack at it you need to do all sorts of mods to make it a dedicated 1/4 car.


Wise words.

I'm running stage 5 and its only really in a straight line you can appreciate the difference between that and stage 4. But it is a thrill and of course my *** is bigger than yours 


If you track the car I'd go stage 4.5 running 620ftlbs and fit the Litchfield suspension set up instead of doing the rods.

But if you really do worry and want peace of mind of course do your rods and stick to 620-650ftlbs.


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

My car is a stage 4 with d/p's .


LITCHFIELD ROD UPGRADE ENGINE
Our Stage 5 upgrade has been a popular upgrade since it was introduced back in 2010. Now we can offer our Stage 5+ package which upgrades the connecting rods in the engine allow it to produce more power 775-800bhp and more torque at 700lbft.

Litchfield GTR Forged Connecting Rods
New bearings, engine gaskets and seals
Balanced Engine internals and Crank balanced
Litchfield Warranty package for UK customers
Litchfield Engine cleanse
Litchfield High performance 5w-40 engine oil
Price £3,656 excluding VAT (£4,387 Including VAT)

LITCHFIELD 3.8 ENGINE

Price for rods , engine would be out so fit new diff at same time .

4.5 turbo's approx. £3,000


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

sounds good but you may need fuel pumps as well.

not to mention circlips and upgraded intercooler.

forgot to mention good brakes if you dont already have some.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Impossible said:


> sounds good but you may need fuel pumps as well.
> 
> not to mention circlips and upgraded intercooler.


I didn't think the cooler was necessary, unless you want to free up another 20-30 hp. Fuel pumps will be though


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

THin k it all depends on what you want from the car.

Track use - you want more power, less torque and strong spool. The car won't ever be sub 4krpm. Smoother power delivery is what's important, you don't want anything that unsettles the car. 

For my money, 4.5 is a better power curve than 4 for track use on most circuits and kinder to rods (torque low down is far more damaging than high power). Stage 5 could be better again, but not many circuits you could use that performance in so what's the point?

I think the ideal setup would be a rev to 7800rpm, circa 850bhp with a straight power line (flat torque curve). Torque limited in 1st/2nd and possibly 3rd.

For road use, response is everything. You rarely get to use top end power, and bags of torque just wastes time spinning wheels. You want the fastest possible response in spool - diesel like flexibility with good top end for when you get a clear road. That's pretty much Stage 4

For mostly road use - stage 4
For more track use - stage 4.5, with rods for safety and higher redline (plus ic and downpipes, to manage heat / reduce backpressure).

Power above that is just willy waving or for drag use imho.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Impossible said:


> sounds good but you may need fuel pumps as well.
> 
> not to mention circlips and upgraded intercooler.
> 
> forgot to mention good brakes if you dont already have some.


Pre My 11 I think it is a max of 650bhp on stock pumps, but my11 onwards are ok to 700ish. They are so cheap in the grand scheme, you would just change them.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Blade said:


> THin k it all depends on what you want from the car.
> 
> Track use - you want more power, less torque and strong spool. The car won't ever be sub 4krpm. Smoother power delivery is what's important, you don't want anything that unsettles the car.
> 
> ...


well said and good info.


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

vxrcymru said:


> Wise words.
> 
> I'm running stage 5 and its only really in a straight line you can appreciate the difference between that and stage 4. But it is a thrill and of course my *** is bigger than yours
> 
> ...


Straight line speed dont need balls, its when you have the ability to brake that much later than the next person, carry more mid corner speed and get back on the power sooner thats where the driver with big balls come into play! I guess your big balls are pretty useless if straight line gives you thrills! You may as well do drag racing!:chuckle:

Seriously, its embarassing to see 900bhp Skylines and are seconds slower over a lap compared to 280 odd bhp BTCC cars. Look at the fastest Time Attack lap from Brands Indy and compare that to BTCC, you will see that BTCC are over a second faster. This is an example on a very small track.

If people spent more time getting the chassis setup right and doing things in the way teams build BTCC cars, you could see some very fast Skylines with out the need of monster bhp.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

rogerdavis said:


> Straight line speed dont need balls, its when you have the ability to brake that much later than the next person, carry more mid corner speed and get back on the power sooner thats where the driver with big balls come into play! I guess your big balls are pretty useless if straight line gives you thrills! You may as well do drag racing!:chuckle:
> 
> Seriously, its embarassing to see 900bhp Skylines and are seconds slower over a lap compared to 280 odd bhp BTCC cars. Look at the fastest Time Attack lap from Brands Indy and compare that to BTCC, you will see that BTCC are over a second faster. This is an example on a very small track.
> 
> If people spent more time getting the chassis setup right and doing things in the way teams build BTCC cars, you could see some very fast Skylines with out the need of monster bhp.


True to an extent, but driving skills play a massive part in it. An awful lot of Time Attack cars are not driving by pro drivers


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Agreed, but then again people seem to be of this mentality to have the most powerful drag spec engine and the biggest rear wing known to man in a track car and not worry too much about brakes suspension and handling.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Also true but to be fair I interpreted vxrcymru's comment as a bit tongue in cheek.

It does amaze me how much money is poured into GTRs to go in a straight line.

I'm pretty sure stage 4.5 is at the sweet spot for the chassis.



I also think there isn't much wrong with the suspension or brakes for track use except for the pads and fluid, up to 4.5 anyway. Gtr needs suspension upgrades to improve its road manners, which Litchfields have done.

You don't really need big brakes with all the drag from those new massive rear wings slowing the car down


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

My car is only a road car and will hardly ever see a track .
I'm pretty happy with GTC 650R power so thinking now after listening your comments I'd be better off spending the money somewhere else like brakes and suspension to make a better road car .

The big question is once she's in getting some work done to her should I do the circlips or is it a waste also if I don't drag or launch her ?

Most of the spirited driving is done on A roads which I think was the cause of the damage to my front diff !


----------



## Buzby (May 15, 2013)

If you take the GT3 RS as a benchmark power is important, but it's nothing without control. Brakes and suspension set up to the right enviroment/track and most importantly the pilots abilities will, often or not, embarrass most big power cars reliant on straight line overtaking but clumsy braking and the ability to hook everything up post apex.

We all seem to get caught up in bragging rights on power and forget the basics.

Enjoy what you have already and invest in intuition as you may think you do, but you never really know your limits or that of car at its current stage of tune or the conditions you'll face every time you go out.

I've seen many drivers upstaged by adverseries that you'd laugh at with way less power but a car that is well set up and a home advantage of knowing the track.

At the end of the day my comments are no reflection on your ability and it's your baby so you can do as you choose. 

This as echoed by the others is merely another point of view.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Peter R35 Gt-R said:


> My car is only a road car and will hardly ever see a track .
> I'm pretty happy with GTC 650R power so thinking now after listening your comments I'd be better off spending the money somewhere else like brakes and suspension to make a better road car .
> 
> The big question is once she's in getting some work done to her should I do the circlips or is it a waste also if I don't drag or launch her ?
> ...


Tricky one on the circlips. In theory you shouldn't need them but you would have to look at empirical evidence of other cars to see how many cars like yours have had gearbox failures preventable by circlip replacement.

I think your diff problem is very strange given it is an open diff. Have you been using large amounts of lock on turns with potholes or something to achieve that?

The Litchfield suspension is a good idea for improved road driving along with mpss especially if your spirited drives are on poor roads.


----------



## charles charlie (May 3, 2008)

IMHO circlips only worth doing if your trans is out already having other work done. Search this forum and see that we've just not had the numbers of failures attributable to circlip failure. Most common trans issue is solenoid/valve body sticking.

As for track vs road power I genuinely feel this is a moot point. 

A standard R35 (any year) will out accelerate 99% of cars you'll meet on the road or track.

So, any engine/exhaust mods up to stage 4 are really for the experience for the driver and dont really make a huge difference on track either as there are only a few tracks where you can accelerate through the gears often enough to make that extra power count.

Track driving is all about brakes, cooling, and cornering limitations based a lot on the car's weight and 4 wheel drive system.

Heavy car, higher terminal speeds causes lots of heat which means it's heavy on brake components.

Transmission temps get high very quickly on track.

So my advice is go for more power if that's what floats your boat but you wont see much difference over stock on track. If you're keen on getting on track then fit better rotors and pads followed by a good trans cooling solution.

I find stock suspension pretty good and cant compare to an MY11, MY12 or Litchfields setup as I havent driven any cars fitted with them and again for track use I'd suggest the diference is marginal. Road use may show a more comfortable ride but a lot of that is subjective for each of us.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

This is all off on a tangent, but there seems to be a common theme going back to the original question.


1) The GTR is pretty damn great out the box

2) Stage 4 is pretty much the best all round tune for vfm, track and road use. Stage 4 is at or above the grip/power ratio limit for the GTR (except at higher revs imho).

3) A regular track user would benefit from improved braking (at least pads/fluids), and potentially a gearbox cooling solution and an intercooler depending on engine/gearbox temps during track usage. 

4) Stage 5+ is a very expensive solution with no real point/benefit unless you drag race the car. The most you will see on the road is a buzz now and again when you get a straight, clear road or on the Hangar straight at Silverstone. 

5) Even though you don't NEED huge power you may WANT huge power just to have the experience, or because you are a genuine willy waver. There are plenty with 1000bhp that don't use it on the road, or a circuit and just do a top speed run now and again, and are happy - so who are we to say otherwise? Pointless to me, but not to them.


I've said it before, Stage 4.5 is the perfect maximum.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Just read through the Litchfield stage upgrades again and for me stage 4 is the one that stands out for fast road use.

Given how guickly the 35 gear box works I would be amazed if there was much between stage 4, 4.5 or 5 on the road as there are only so many long straights you could get your foot right down to feel the extra power. 

I am of the opinion that a stage 4 in a street use situation would not feel out of place against a stage 4.5/5. On the track however I could see stage 4.5/5 being a step forward.



Given UK roads have more corners than the States the outcome would be interesting


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QXrywLZdT4


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Yep - but it depends on the road. The power goes flat about 5k with all these stage 4 conversions as the turbo cannot flow any more. This translates to the car feeling flat. Sure you can change gear to keep accelerating at the same rate, but there is still a flat area to avoid dropping too far down the rev range, and that extra gear change up and down on a give and take road can lose you time against an equally well driven car with a broader powerband that is still on the increase. Less chance of unsettling the car with less gear changes also.

That does really mean you are in the situation of driving very quickly on clear roads, which is SO rare and very unlikely in this country, that it is a bit of a moot point by me


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

This thread sums up what I mean about Stage 4.5

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/177813-stage-4-5-v-stage-4-dyno-comparison.html

Think about the time you lose above 5000 rpm compared to the 4.5 and the extra gear changes needed. Translates into a much more flexible car, almost like you have another 1500rpm compared to stg 4

If anyone recalls the early evo and Scooby days. You could either have a car tuned for torque (rally style, all low down and runs out of puff up top) - that's what stage 4 looks a bit like
OR you could have it for power - crap spool, no torque low down but great top end.

Stage 4.5 is like both those together! No losses down low, and great power up top and a flattish torque curve AND without having to do the engine.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

i think the best thing to do to improve the car, is weight reduction.

You will brake better, accelerate better, corner better and cause less strain on internals. 

I know people have heard the weight helps the cars performance but lets be honest its a load of crap made up to make it sound like making the car so heavy was intended. The truth is the handling is attributed to the advanced 4 wheel drive system, Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain Electronic Torque Split (ATTESSA E-TS). You cant beat the law's of physics.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

That Dyno is good to see.

I think if money was no object 4.5 would be the best overall to go for but as my own car would be for street use only I think I would sooner save the £5500+ and have a stage 4 for fast road use.

I recall the old Subaru days as I had 3 of those before I bought my 33:thumbsup:


----------



## Henry 145 (Jul 15, 2009)

So Tony when you getting stage 4.5?


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

that dyno is 
stage 4 with no downpipes on v2 ecutek
vs
stage 4.5 on v3 ecutek (obviously with downpipes)


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Impossible said:


> i think the best thing to do to improve the car, is weight reduction.
> 
> You will brake better, accelerate better, corner better and cause less strain on internals.
> 
> I know people have heard the weight helps the cars performance but lets be honest its a load of crap made up to make it sound like making the car so heavy was intended. The truth is the handling is attributed to the advanced 4 wheel drive system, Advanced Total Traction Engineering System for All-Terrain Electronic Torque Split (ATTESSA E-TS). You cant beat the law's of physics.


Well, it's true and it isn't true. You would need to remove weight equally around the car and then increase aerodynamic downforce to give the same force to the ground at higher speeds.

The reality is you cannot lose anything sensible enough on these cars without it not being a road car any more, not for sensible money. 50kgs is going to make hardly any difference on a 1725kgs car. You need to lose 200kgs to really make a difference. Look at most GTR owners ADDING weight with dynamat and amps ffs!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

TREG said:


> That Dyno is good to see.
> 
> I think if money was no object 4.5 would be the best overall to go for but as my own car would be for street use only I think I would sooner save the £5500+ and have a stage 4 for fast road use.
> 
> I recall the old Subaru days as I had 3 of those before I bought my 33:thumbsup:



Agreed. Better to get the suspension for just road use.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Impossible said:


> that dyno is
> stage 4 with no downpipes on v2 ecutek
> vs
> stage 4.5 on v3 ecutek (obviously with downpipes)


Downpipes on stg 4 makes little difference and v3 vs v2 ecutek is not going to make any significant difference unless it can magically make the turbos flow more, which they can't!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Henry 145 said:


> So Tony when you getting stage 4.5?


When they is free, innit 

I'm doing a few trackdays as it is Henry, until I figure out what's good and bad. I know I'll do it, but I don't want to jump in and find out it isn't enough power after all. I really DONT want to get into engine work at all, and I think there will be another 4.5 style kit soon that might be a bit better.

Once I figure out the right thing, then it's just a question of money!

I've still got the Honda race car in build so mustn't go too mad


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

its quite interesting, alcon bbk costs about £9k when it first came out. do you think using the same £9k to make the car lighter would improve the braking as much as having the Alcons? 

Obviously we would get better acceleration and cornering as well.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

Blade said:


> Downpipes on stg 4 makes little difference and v3 vs v2 ecutek is not going to make any significant difference unless it can magically make the turbos flow more, which they can't!


may be but the little difference closes the gap lower down especially on spool.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

I don't think the Alcons increase the stopping power significantly at all against MY11 onwards. Given the limiting factor of stopping power is the ABS cutting in (loss of traction) and you have to manually perform threshold braking to get the shortest stopping distance, having more stopping power is not going to help.

What's needed is better heat management which the Alcons do provide, but a disc upgrade also does that. Fade resistance from both heat management and better pads does not require a move to Alcons which have less pad choice.

The GTR Brembo calipers are monoblocs and a decent size. There is a bit of a reduction in unsprung weight, but again of little consequence on the road and 99% of people won't make use of it on a circuit either.

The guys at CATDT said there was no discernible difference between by Brembos + Pagids and Tin's Alcons.

I'd rather stick with the wider pad choice of the Brembos.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Impossible said:


> may be but the little difference closes the gap lower down especially on spool.


Yes, but I'm talking top end difference - 5k onwards. Downpipes will not make any difference


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

thats good to know. I think ill just change to the pagids from OEM.


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

blade said:


> well, it's true and it isn't true. You would need to remove weight equally around the car and then increase aerodynamic downforce to give the same force to the ground at higher speeds.
> 
> The reality is you cannot lose anything sensible enough on these cars without it not being a road car any more, not for sensible money. 50kgs is going to make hardly any difference on a 1725kgs car. You need to lose 200kgs to really make a difference. Look at most gtr owners adding weight with dynamat and amps ffs!





blade said:


> agreed. Better to get the suspension for just road use.





blade said:


> downpipes on stg 4 makes little difference and v3 vs v2 ecutek is not going to make any significant difference unless it can magically make the turbos flow more, which they can't!





blade said:


> when they is free, innit :d
> 
> i'm doing a few trackdays as it is henry, until i figure out what's good and bad. I know i'll do it, but i don't want to jump in and find out it isn't enough power after all. I really dont want to get into engine work at all, and i think there will be another 4.5 style kit soon that might be a bit better.
> 
> ...


4 posts in a row!!!

c-c-c combo breaker!



impossible said:


> its quite interesting, alcon bbk costs about £9k when it first came out. Do you think using the same £9k to make the car lighter would improve the braking as much as having the alcons?
> 
> Obviously we would get better acceleration and cornering as well.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

FLYNN said:


> 4 posts in a row!!!
> 
> c-c-c combo breaker!


Lol - I was replying to 4 posts at the same time.

Makes me look like a right post whore


----------



## FLYNN (Oct 6, 2006)

Blade said:


> Lol - I was replying to 4 posts at the same time.
> 
> Makes me look like a right post whore


:thumbsup:


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

I too dont think there is a big difference between brembos and alcons. Replacing the disks with slotted or grooved might be a good idea as the drilled disks seem to crack but pad choice is just as important, but to have proper ducting/cooling is crutial to reduce fade as is using a good brake fluid such as SRF or AP660.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Difference in alcons is pedal feel and fade resistance over many high speed stops. The calipers do not flex at all, the stock ones do - apparently - could be marketing hype.

It does make me laugh when people say the weight argument is nonsense. My background is physics so of course I was hugely sceptical, but it's hard to argue with the empirical evidence.

Looks at the ring lap time! You might say the theory is nonsense but it's difficult to argue with the results.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

not sure what your saying here Adam. Are you saying the GTR's lap time at the ring is evidence that less weight would mean a slower laptime?


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

I think he's saying a car weighing nearly 1900 kg with all fluids and a driver can manage 7:20 at the ring which is faster than cars with similar power and 400kg less weight (such as the 997.2 Turbo).

David


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Thanks David for rephrasing my point so succinctly.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Difference in alcons is pedal feel and fade resistance over many high speed stops. The calipers do not flex at all, the stock ones do - apparently - could be marketing hype.
> 
> It does make me laugh when people say the weight argument is nonsense. My background is physics so of course I was hugely sceptical, but it's hard to argue with the empirical evidence.
> 
> Looks at the ring lap time! You might say the theory is nonsense but it's difficult to argue with the results.


No its not nonsense at all. The secret sauce of the GTR is in keeping all 4 wheels in maximum contact most of the time. Once you are over 80mph or so weight has less impact as the mass is already moving. The force you exert on the tarmac translates to good mechanical group, and with the GTR's weight and aero, the grip is immense. I do believe reducing weight willy-nilly wil result in a poorer balance. But, reduce weight AND rebalance the aero accordingly, then you get a faster car.

Simply buying lighter wheels/brakes or slapping carbon panels around will not yield the results people expect for the money!

On the brakes front - get to the physics of it. Calipers flex less? That's insane. They are both monobloc calipers. The most they can do is flex on their mounts a bit and that will just impact feel on initial bite (but that could also be the pads). There is a massive difference with brembos and pagids and I bet the alcons are not that different.

Heat management is the main benefit but that is down to the disc/bell and pad size. YOu can get the same disc/bell on the stock caliper, so is the Alcon pad significantly bigger? Even if it is, the Brembo pad choice is much larger so a different compound can still match the larger pad.

It can only be a little better, certainly not £9000 better.

It's all well and good to quote physics but you know well enough when it comes to cars, what you plan/sketch out does not translate to actually behaving that way in the real world, otherwise with all the resources they have, why would McLaren build such a shit F1 car this year!!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

rogerdavis said:


> I too dont think there is a big difference between brembos and alcons. Replacing the disks with slotted or grooved might be a good idea as the drilled disks seem to crack but pad choice is just as important, but to have proper ducting/cooling is crutial to reduce fade as is using a good brake fluid such as SRF or AP660.



Thoroughly agree.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

so do you think reducing weight would hinder lap times?

yes in your example the 997.2 turbo is slower but its a different car. Just because it has less weight does not mean its the reduced weight that made it slower. the car may have poorer balance, inferior traction control/4 wheel drive etc etc...


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Impossible said:


> so do you think reducing weight would hinder lap times?
> 
> yes in your example the 997.2 turbo is slower but its a different car. Just because it has less weight does not mean its the reduced weight that made it slower. the car may have poorer balance, inferior traction control/4 wheel drive etc etc...


No, otherwise the GT3 car would be slower than the road car!

What I am saying is there is little you can do sensibly to the road car without it stopping being a road car.

You could also mess up the balance by disproportionately taking weight out, but that's hardly rocket science, all race cars look for even weight distribution for this precise reason.

Let's take a Radical SR3 for example. Less than half the GTR's weight and power, faster lap times but immense aero - but it's a race car essentially.

The GTR is a grand tourer that behaves like a trackday special in all aspects except for wear and tear (which is DEFINITELY the one place you can't cheat physics!)


----------



## pulsarboby (Nov 3, 2012)

on the subject of brakes...........has anyone tried the carbotech pads in a gtr
ive had them on a few track cars now and the stopping ability is awesome even on lesser discs so to speak.

also have to agree with blade on the weight thing, you need to distribute weight evenly or youll end up with a very unsettled car that could well be front heavy if you remove all rear seats interior etc.

also regarding the initial question about stage 5.........il have to agree with a few other comments made by various people in 'learn how to handle power you have first' how many can honestly say hand on heart that they can drive a stage 4 car to its absolute limits!!!
far better to spend your money on a bit of pro tuition then use what power you have to yours and the cars limits


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Blade, 

There's a thread somewhere tha shows stress analysis on the stock calipers which shows how much they flex. The flex apparently has an impact on pedal feel.

You need to drive a bbk car to understand the confidence they inspire.

And btw the pads are smaller than stock.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Blade,
> 
> There's a thread somewhere tha shows stress analysis on the stock calipers which shows how much they flex. The flex apparently has an impact on pedal feel.
> 
> ...


Adam - I've bought and driven all sorts of brake kits including Indy Champ Car Composite 8 piston Cerametallic brakes!

Flex is there for a reason on a road car, but I have to say with the Pagids, the confidence is really good. I've driven the Alcons on Iains M3, so in a pretty good position to compare those (same calipers) with APs split caliper, and BMW's shit sliding piston. Not much between the Alcon and the AP in general use.


Anyway, it's all rubbish because I know you only bought them as they are PRETTY!!!   

Each to their own, but thus far I have seen no reason to change the brakes. I reserve the right to change my mind. I'll see if I can get Tin to let me drive his round Brands in June   


Those brakes I just mentioned were MENTAL. Made from some composite material so weighed virtually nothing. Each caliper had FOUR pads (DS 4000). They were iron discs but gave a carbon/cerametallic style brake. Don't ask about the costs... They ended up on Simon Norris' green monster evo.
Be interested to know what the difference in pad area is. At the end of the day the clamping force and torque applied to the disc are what count, and with the disc size the same (well can be) the rest is down to the pad material. The pad size won't change the force in a night-and-day way, the friction of the pad material does.


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

If people have too much money to burn, why not go for the Stillen Carbon brake kit! Now you can brag at the pub along with your 1000+bhp engines 

http://www.stillen.com/products/bra...5-carbon-ceramic-matrix-brake-upgrade-100191/


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I did buy them because they were pretty and also because my car was 100 miles old at the time, I offset a good chunk of the price by selling my stock stuff.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> I did buy them because they were pretty and also because my car was 100 miles old at the time, I offset a good chunk of the price by selling my stock stuff.



That's a good point, but I can't take your purchase seriously until you at least turn up to a track day


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

It was my first track day in the R35 that caused me to upgrade.
Find a nice short circuit that doesn't suit the car (Brands Hatch Indy) and you can cook the brakes before the gearbox!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

CT17 said:


> It was my first track day in the R35 that caused me to upgrade.
> Find a nice short circuit that doesn't suit the car (Brands Hatch Indy) and you can cook the brakes before the gearbox!


I've got the first proper one at Brands GP in a few weeks time. I may of course eat my words, but it seems the only real advantage is pedal feel.

The only big stop on the Indy circuit is Druids. Were you on totally stock brakes (pads) at the time?

Has NuburgringGTR got Alcons?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

The only big plus point I can see for the Alcon BBK is that it has been designed to give a better braking balance front to rear than the OEM system.

All OEM systems have to be front biased for safety for the average driver on normal road conditions.

The BBK allows slightly more work to be done by the rear brakes, so the car doesn't dip its nose as much under hard braking. It squats more on all four wheels.

But despite doing countless track days after the last 4 and a bit years (albeit most at way less than "race" pace), I cannot fault the Brembo calipers.
Yes the OEM discs are chocolate (my original fronts lasted less than 5k miles), but APs and Alcons have been great. 400mm Alcons give a bit more leverage (no doubt at the expense of even more front bias) and Carbonetic Spec-R and Pagid pads have been outstanding.

The big downside to the Alcon BBK is the lack of pad choice, and as Blade says, that is far more valuable than minor differences in caliper flex.

I am interested in trying the Performance Friction discs now that my 400mm Alcons are finally beginning to crack after a couple of years of hard use.

As for Stage 4.5/5 over Stage 4, I personally love the top end rush of extra power of the Stage 4.5 over the stock turbos which do run out of puff pretty early.

However, I'd like to run more torque lower down, so I know I'll succumb to a higher level at some point.
But as I said, Stage 4.5 was not designed to be an interim step to higher stages. If you want to go more than 700/720hp, then spend more on the Garrett turbos to begin with and add rods etc as you can afford to.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Blade said:


> I've got the first proper one at Brands GP in a few weeks time. I may of course eat my words, but it seems the only real advantage is pedal feel.
> The only big stop on the Indy circuit is Druids. Were you on totally stock brakes (pads) at the time?
> 
> Has NuburgringGTR got Alcons?


No, he hasn't.

The advantage is not only pedal feel.

At the risk of repeating myself from other threads they do stop better from higher speeds.
I've taken other GT-R owners out in my car and they were surprised how much better the brakes are, from them sitting in the passenger seat.

Looks like a case of you pay your money and make your choice.

I upgraded the brakes on my MY10 to 400mm discs and uprated pads and they didn't feel that good at all.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

David, this does not seem to be the case and something shown clearly at the CATDT course (which I was surprised about). The GTR has a excessive REAR brake bias so much so that even braking hard in a straight line throws the rear of the car out if you are to aggressive with initial braking. This was the same on Alcon cars (possibly worse as Tin had a BIG moment in a STRAIGHT LINE). Their advices was to not even use trail braking with the GTR unless you were really proficient and aiming to rotate the car into corners (99.99% of drivers won't do this or even understand it).

It was my first opportunity to drive the car in circuit conditions, and I would be very tempted if using it on track a lot to either look into pressure reducers (AP do them) to reduce the rear break or a softer pad for the rear. I've always thought on the road it a bit unstable under braking at the rear and trail-braking and road speeds. Colin at CATDT said that it is a common Nissan trait and appears on other cars (like the 370Z). Its a deliberate design element!


I think PF discs and pads may be a good choice (they always have been on other cars)

Surprised you want more torque low down. Did you experience a torque loss with the 4.5 kit over stage 4, or is it that you would prefer a lazier car for when you can't be bothered (as opposed to on circuit) ?


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

CT17 said:


> No, he hasn't.
> 
> The advantage is not only pedal feel.
> 
> ...



I suspect the easy way to see if this is the case is to compare both. Tin (with Alcons and Pagids) and me (stock MY11 brakes with Pagids) will be at Brands GP so we can directly compare with things like G under braking (which should be higher with the Alcons).

Comments like "you pays your money" are obvious but not necessarily helpful. I'm trying to separate the subjective from the actual. The reason I asked about John is that he seems to be one of the quicker GTR drivers out there repeatedly using it on a circuit, and chasing tenths in his own performance. If the brakes were an inhibitor to that, I am curious why he hasn't changed them.

The problem with a subject like brakes is that it has so much to do with driving style. If you are heavy on brakes and reliant on how they feel, the Alcons will be a better choice. Same is true for the MPSS. You can't argue with how a modification makes you feel both in terms of the ability to inspire confidence or in how pretty they look (Adam  )

Incidentally I only upgraded the pads on mine and they feel very good. I've driven Iain's M3 with the same calipers/discs on and I thought they were too aggressive!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

True and only John M can say why he hasn't changed.
When I followed him round Silverstone he would leave me behind on straights where his stage 4 goes better than my stage 2, (not to mention he knows the track a lot better) but I'd brake later and catch up a bit on the corners.
Then I passed him after a few laps, possibly because he was coming in or possibly because his brakes had gone off, who knows? 
Only he is qualified to comment.

The confidence from the Alcon Superkit is very good allows you to brake late time after time without worrying about fade.
I've had several people watch on track days and notice that I do brake later into corners than other GT-Rs.
You can only do that if the brakes are better and give you confidence they are going to work when you want them too.

Appologies about the earlier remark, but it's probably a better discussion on the Alcon BBK thread, rather than the stage 5 thread. So I was trying not to go into too much detail.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

I have to agree, I'm on stock MY11 brakes and I do feel an unbalance in braking with the front dipping down and the back rising. Blade please let us know how you get on in a few weeks with your comparison. 

David as Blade asked do you feel your stage 4.5 has less torque lower down then stage 4?


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

CT17 said:


> True and only John M can say why he hasn't changed.
> When I followed him round Silverstone he would leave me behind on straights where his stage 4 goes better than my stage 2, (not to mention he knows the track a lot better) but I'd brake later and catch up a bit on the corners.
> Then I passed him after a few laps, possibly because he was coming in or possibly because his brakes had gone off, who knows?
> Only he is qualified to comment.
> ...


yeh but he could also be approaching the corner faster then you with stage 4, hence you see his lights come on before you would brake. The faster you go the harder it is to break the right amount for a corner.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Impossible said:


> yeh but he could also be approaching the corner faster then you with stage 4, hence you see his lights come on before you would brake. The faster you go the harder it is to break the right amount for a corner.


Maybe, several car lengths?
Combination of both IN MY OPINION.

I was closing the distance down under braking.
This is not possible if the car you are following only brakes earlier because it's going faster.


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

wow that much. i see your point.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Blade,

Much as they do look pretty, I noticed a step change in feel and confidence.

The only way I can describe it is as follows.

When you drive the gtr, you know that if you put your foot down, you can accelerate knowing that there is almost no other car that will accelerate as capably.

The accelerator has a feeling of invincibility.

After the brake change, the brake pedal can deliver the same feeling about stopping. You just know that if there's more than minimum perfect stopping distance available, they will always deliver that performance.

It takes the feeling of uncertainty away from the brakes, I don't know that you can say that about disc and pad upgrades.

I know mine were changed after only 100 miles, but bear in mind I had three other GTRs before. You of all people should know that!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Blade,
> 
> Much as they do look pretty, I noticed a step change in feel and confidence.
> 
> ...


Of course, I'm in one of them   


I've upgraded brakes on every car I've owned, save the Stradale and a couple of pointless ones.

I've bought something like 10 AP kits in the last 10 years!!!! (omg)

I was SO pleased to see a car from the factory with monobloc calipers, decent discs and pad size. Alcons SHOULD be better and no doubt are, I'm not really questioning that but on paper the Brembos should be fine and I'd rather try to make those work well that just throw money at the problem.

I know that's not my normal behaviour  - I also like the stock look.

On something like the E92 M3, the brakes are shit. Good size, but narrow discs, chocolate pads and a sliding piston caliper. Even with a pad, hose and fluid upgrade - the brake force was good, but absolutely no finesse (so bad that you couldn't even trail brake). AP's or Alcons were night and day.

On the GTR, it can't possibly be night and day, but for the list price it SHOULD be night and day. I know money is no object for some, but I just feel Nissan didn't actually skimp here (unlike BMW).

I read an article the other day of someone extensively tracking his GTR and finally moved to Alcons as he was chasing TENTHS. Tenths I get, but CT is talking car lengths and that seems wrong!


I'm going to dig out my old DL1 datalogger and slap it in my car and Tin's. It's the only way! Failing that I'll be videoing the brake trace on the MFD!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

CT17 said:


> Maybe, several car lengths?
> Combination of both IN MY OPINION.
> 
> I was closing the distance down under braking.
> This is not possible if the car you are following only brakes earlier because it's going faster.


Also different drivers makes it difficult to compare. It's the price that's off-putting. I'm used to £4 to 5k for a complete brake kit. There is no good reason for the Alcons to be as much as they are, and it is a bit offensive when the stock setup is more than adequate.

I think your point about going OT is right, though we got here as someone suggested slapping Alcons and suspension on would make the car that much faster in the real world, and I don't think it does really as it isn't incompetent in that area.

Back to the REALLY important question... why does David want more torque? Is it because a) He is greedy or b) He's lost some. MarcR35GTR's graph shows no loss of torque (indeed the opposite).


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Blade said:


> I read an article the other day of someone extensively tracking his GTR and finally moved to Alcons as he was chasing TENTHS. Tenths I get, but CT is talking car lengths and that seems wrong!


As mentioned, the other car was probably going quicker.
Which will form part of the difference.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Did you notice much difference between your stg 2 and his stg 4?

I didn;'t think the jump from my11 stg1 to stg4 that different. Its a step, but if anything was smoother than before.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

Blade said:


> Did you notice much difference between your stg 2 and his stg 4?
> 
> I didn;'t think the jump from my11 stg1 to stg4 that different. Its a step, but if anything was smoother than before.


Yes, John M was clearly pulling away on the straights.

As always there are other factors involved.
My first time at Silverstone, so possibly he had a bit more cornering speed.
But even allowing for that I'd say there is a noticable difference.
Mine doesn't smoke though.  (it's a small consolation)

20-30bhp and a bit more torque should give a small benefit.
As said, I feel I was getting a bit back under braking. But not all of it.
He can drive that circuit though!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Yes, his times are very impressive , but then so must yours be if you were that close.


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

I was helped by traffic.
He reached it first. 

Vid is here of me following him, with my instructor aboard:

Silverstone 1 - YouTube


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

CT17 said:


> I was helped by traffic.
> He reached it first.
> 
> Vid is here of me following him, with my instructor aboard:
> ...


Yes, his car has more grunt, can clearly see that when traffic cleared and you both went. 

There was a lot more braking going on than I would have thought, but I am guessing it was more slippery than it looked given the time of year. Lots of traffic.

That was actually bloody disorientating for me. I've done countless laps of the old GP circuit, including 2 x 24hr races, but from Abbey onwards it just looked so different. Seems you end up on the old international circuit at the end on the way back to Luffield?

John's car looked mighty fast though and well balanced, surprisingly for a big car.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

You only have to look at relative pad/disc wear front to rear to see that the GT-R has a heavy front brake bias, in common with all front engined OEM set-ups.

I believe a lot of the instability under braking (especially in the earlier cars) was due to a lack of damper travel in the rear, causing the rear wheels to lift sooner than they should.

As for more torque low down; Iain deliberately dialled in a linear torque curve for my set up to keep torque lower in the lower part of the rev range in deference to my stock rods that have had over 30k hard miles already!

There are times I miss the instant snap response of the stock turbos from low revs, so once the rods are changed, I will get some of that back even if it means I have to be more careful on track re traction.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Well both mine and Tin's cars are MY11 and the instability is there with Alcons in Tin's and Pagids on stock discs. It is only really noticeable when threshold braking.

I'll see if I can get Colin to comment on here, but this was the very first point they made about the car, and his background would appear to make him well qualified on the subject.

Are you confusing weight transference under braking with brake bias? Front pads always wear out faster because of the weight transference. That's not the same as the clamping force applied in relation to pedal pressure at the front and rear (the bias).

The only way to see if the bias is too much to the front or rear is if it is too much to the front, you suffer from understeer or the fronts locking/triggering abs constantly. If it is too much to the rear, you suffer instability. What you want is the right amount of bias to use all four tyres efficiently under braking. A little bit of rear bias helps corner rotation resulting in big increases in exit speed if done right, but a car set up this way can become very tricky in certain conditions or on certain corners/road surfaces.


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Half of it is all in the head about wanting Alcons. When Nissan tested the GTR at the Nurburgring at most they would have used cooling ducts, different pads and a racing fluid. Do you think they put on 400mm alcon disks and alcon calipers? I wonder where all this caliper flexing nonsense came from? People who wanted to sell the kit? Correct me if I am wrong, Brembo are not K Sport and made bloody good braking systems. I can fully understand the 380 drilled disks cracking due to heat and wear.

Learn to use the equipent you have first and if absolutle must that your calipers are flexing then its worth upgrading.

Weight transfer as Blade mentions is another thing that can give someone the impression that it front end is over braking and the back end is becoming light, does not always mean its the brake balance, but also down to technique applied. I have had no problems with trail braking my R33 and R32 at both Brands and Silverstone, infact Brooklands is such corner I can give an example that you can gain a lot of time taking the right line and trail braking rather than the conventional brake in a straight line and turn.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Interesting reading Blade!

Must say when I was threshold braking on the straight at Millbrook, I had no issues at all with rear end stability.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> Interesting reading Blade!
> 
> Must say when I was threshold braking on the straight at Millbrook, I had no issues at all with rear end stability.


You weren't doing it properly then 

It was wet and greasy too, which would make it more apparent


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

I'm actually going to draw a close to this off-topic behaviour!

Did try earlier. So - no more brakes


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Blade said:


> So - no more brakes




No brakes

You need an upgrade see the above posts mate :chuckle:


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

TREG said:


> No brakes
> 
> You need an upgrade see the above posts mate :chuckle:


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

Ths tread is about making the car faster not slower


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Peter R35 Gt-R said:


> Ths tread is about making the car faster not slower



Tread?


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Peter R35 Gt-R said:


> Ths tread is about making the car faster not slower


Faster is not always the best unless you want bragging rights!:chuckle:


----------



## rogerdavis (Feb 16, 2008)

Blade said:


> Tread?


Its the accent, we can excuse him


----------



## Vernonjones (Oct 23, 2012)

Blade said:


> Tread?


R888's work well and make it faster round corners.... unless its wet....

Sorry Couldn't resist.

Hi Blade


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Vernonjones said:


> R888's work well and make it faster round corners.... unless its wet....
> 
> Sorry Couldn't resist.
> 
> Hi Blade


Hey Vernon. You not got an opinion on all this?


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

THREAD smart arses :bawling::chairshot:nervous::blahblah:


----------



## Peter R35 Gt-R (Jun 13, 2011)

That's it I'm putting brakes on her and staying stage 4.25


----------



## Vernonjones (Oct 23, 2012)

Blade said:


> Hey Vernon. You not got an opinion on all this?


OK here goes.....

My opinion of a standard car is that it really is not what I thought a GTR was. Stage 2 is where the power to weight gets to where I thought a GTR should be from factory (factory BHP now getting closer)

Stage 3 is really a setup for Stage 4. Stage 4 will get rid of most things on the road, and is more than ample for the majority of track.

Now this is where is gets tricky. There are 3 types of people that want a stage 5:

1. Bragging rights (we'll ignore those type for now)
2. Straight line races
3. Track work
{added}3.1 GTR owners with Stage 4

User number 2 will always need more power, no matter how much he / she has, and in this case, yes, its a considerable advantage over stage 4, especially at top end.

User number 3 is tricky. I consider myself a good track driver, being able to eek out the last few feet under braking and holding a wee bit more mid corner than most, but I'm not sure I would be significantly faster in a stage 5 vs a stage 4. This is partly due to the additional speed carried into a braking zone has to come off, and the difference in brain power for an extra 5-10MPH > 150 is massive, you then lose a bit of time being able to think about the corner. Yes - you will then make it up on the straights, but that's a Clarkson way of racing - although satisfying, ultimately not rewarding.

There is also the argument that stage 5 is where the mods start appreciating the car.


*Conclusion*

Is stage 5 worth it? In my opinion - Hell yes. But then again, I am user 1,2 and 3 

PS for anyone wanting to beat anything else that involves corners, Get the Alcon BBK. I make up more time with those than anything else.

Peace 

VJ


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Vernonjones said:


> OK here goes.....
> Is stage 5 worth it? In my opinion - Hell yes. But then again, I am user 1,2 and 3


Brilliant!



Vernonjones said:


> PS for anyone wanting to beat anything else that involves corners, Get the Alcon BBK. I make up more time with those than anything else.


Damn you!!  

I guess my view would be running the BBK makes sense if you trackday it a lot, but tracking a GTR a lot doesn't makes sense to me as it is so expensive in consumables.

Cheaper to go racing!


----------



## CT17 (Mar 25, 2011)

If I was not going to track it, I'd probably not keep it.
I can't see the point in a car of this capability and cost just for road use.
But then I am probably not normal as I can't understand people with a zillion bhp that only do one or two little events each year.
Surely the whole point is to use it?

My daily hack costs 20%-30% of the GT-R to run and is better suited to daily use.
I don't care about what I am seen in, buying a GT-R to impress people is a bit odd. It appeals to teenage boys.

Just for info, while my geometry is set up for road work, the consumables are not too bad.
Four track days so far and I'm about a third of the way through a set of pads and just over half way through a set of tyres. (cheaper MPSS)


----------



## Impossible (May 11, 2011)

cost and worth is subject to everyone's personal situation. it depends what the money to upgrade is worth to you. 

if your asking if its worth the upgrade then probably not for you. If your asking if its noticeably faster then that's another thing. if you dont notice much of a change just go to stage 6


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

CT17 said:


> If I was not going to track it, I'd probably not keep it.
> I can't see the point in a car of this capability and cost just for road use.
> But then I am probably not normal as I can't understand people with a zillion bhp that only do one or two little events each year.
> Surely the whole point is to use it?
> ...


I was really thinking of someone who does a lot of events, i.e. a couple each month. Sure, doing half a dozen a year or so is no issue. The consumables of tyres/pads are one thing but the sheer weight of the car will see you wearing other things pretty quickly (bearings, diffs, driveshafts etc)

I don't agree on the road use part as the GTR is probably the most all-round competent road car I've had. Then again, my daily use pattern is different to others. I used to drive a Stradale to work because it was still fun even at road speeds. 

Just about any car you buy now could be viewed as too fast for the road! Even your basic hot hatch runs at new Sierra Cossie speeds!


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

What this thread does show is that there is no right answer. We are all different and individual


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm not.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Neither am I.


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

Thought I'd add my 2p's worth, as blade is keen to drive my precious gtr!

Yep, quite agree, the car is excellent on the road, power, practicality, rare, comfortable etc. having something that can do all that and then simply go on a trackday and be driven home, and doesn't cost the earth is great!

Yes there are better & faster cars for the track (gt3rs's etc), but how many of them can still carry a fair bootload and still give as much enjoyment? 

Even though mine is mainly used at weekends, trackdays are when you can really use alot of the power, being able to enjoy that power without worrying about oem discs/pads cracking up is a real confidence booster. 

I've had Ap's/brembos/Alcons combinations on various cars over the years and always found alcons to handle the abuse, my overall driving style is probably alittle brake heavy, as I'd prefer to be cautious than reckless 

I did start to see very miniscle telltale cracks around the drilled holes on the standard discs, and now with more track days lined this year, alcons were the better option (price fitted was good!), along with stg4 upgrade, the car accelerates with a brutal amount of force, and thus being able to reduce the sudden aceleration (repeatedly) in similar fashion is great. Being mindful & concious of the rear locking up now easily, allows you to dab hard on the brakes using 30-40% pedal where you maybe using 50-60% before. (Track is different).Perhaps there needs to be a through test with same car, same circuit, diff brake setups only, no traffic.

I could easily go with stg5/6 in a few months but for how the car now goes&stops its perfect for my needs, and I'd rather not spoil it for the sake of modifying and chasing zillion hp. (Chris Harris's recent vid does show LM750 quite usable on closed track), but I wonder how loud that setup is?

Not sure, How much of a difference the litchfield suspension would make over the my12 asymmeteric setup, possibly add ARBs after a few trackdays, and to get the geo setup properly via someone like CenterGravity.

Btw Blade, mine is a my12 not my11, and blue is faster, something to do with the blue paintwork being able to slipstream better! oh i might put the dunlops back on for brands, if the weather is dry, but as CT17 says, mpss for half the price of dunlops and only half worn after 4 trackdays, is excellent.

Mike's porkie has seen 4 trackdays, numerous euro trips, around 20k miles and still have 3mm on michelin pilot sports.

Sorry for going alittle off topic Barry


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

MY12 - so you have the inferior japanese specced suspension, set up for 8st japanese men in the driver seat and japanese roads.

Shame!


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

Adamantium said:


> MY12 - so you have the inferior japanese specced suspension, set up for 8st japanese men in the driver seat and japanese roads.
> 
> Shame!


Touchè! Japanese roads are imo alot smoother than the uk, almost track like smoothness, just like the nice twisties over in europe. Good job I only weigh 8st (I wish!)


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

my legs weigh 8 stone each!


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

Perhaps your next mod could be a centre seat setup, like the mclaren f1  you'll get to move the mfd controls too

Anyone know which dash brace has been rein-enforced for my13, to lower the centre of gravity? Seems to have made quite an improvement in ring lap time.


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Tin said:


> Btw Blade, mine is a my12 not my11, and blue is faster, something to do with the blue paintwork being able to slipstream better! oh i might put the dunlops back on for brands, if the weather is dry, but as CT17 says, mpss for half the price of dunlops and only half worn after 4 trackdays, is excellent.
> 
> Mike's porkie has seen 4 trackdays, numerous euro trips, around 20k miles and still have 3mm on michelin pilot sports.
> 
> Sorry for going alittle off topic Barry


Makes no difference Tin My12/My11 - Mike will be quicker


----------



## Blade (Feb 12, 2003)

Adamantium said:


> my legs weigh 8 stone each!


My third leg does


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Blade said:


> My third leg does




Is this you?

http://yoowho.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/man-with-three-leg/


----------



## Tin (Aug 15, 2010)

Blade said:


> Makes no difference Tin My12/My11 - Mike will be quicker


No he won't!:runaway: Practice run to Aachen this weekend.:chairshot


----------



## tooFATtoDRIVE (Mar 3, 2013)

Can anyone tell me what the Litchfield BHP numbers refer to? Crank or at wheels?


----------



## R35 Boxer (Aug 12, 2012)

tooFATtoDRIVE said:


> Can anyone tell me what the Litchfield BHP numbers refer to? Crank or at wheels?


At the wheels


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Which numbers?

No one uses at the wheels numbers in the uk!


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

R35 Boxer said:


> At the wheels


They are flywheel figures, not at the wheels.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 29, 2004)

So Barry, have you drawn a conclusion from all this of whether you will go for stage 4, 4.5 or 5?


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

Conrad said:


> So Barry, have you drawn a conclusion from all this of whether you will go for stage 4, 4.5 or 5?


Staying at stage 4, seems to be a big expense to jump any further and as my car is a road rather than track focused machine it seems to me the number of times you use the extra power and torque to its full potential on the road is very small . The stage 4 cars showed up very well against the stage 4.5 and 5 cars on the recent mile competition in Wales and the Vbox thread with 0-60 times doesn't make me have an urge to rush out and throw a load more money at what is already a very fast car.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

barry P. said:


> Staying at stage 4, seems to be a big expense to jump any further and as my car is a road rather than track focused machine it seems to me the number of times you use the extra power and torque to its full potential on the road is very small . The stage 4 cars showed up very well against the stage 4.5 and 5 cars on the recent mile competition in Wales and the Vbox thread with 0-60 times doesn't make me have an urge to rush out and throw a load more money at what is already a very fast car.


Smart choice..... :thumbsup:

I am going to finish of stage 4 (full intakes, fuel pumps, intercooler or hard pipe kit) and call it day on the performance mods, as you say on the road, the car is more than fast enough.

Time to focus on the brakes, suspension, weight and aero


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Must admit, that does sound very sensible, although now, I think I'd be falling towards stage 4.5.

It's a big jump up in numbers and really is the limit of stock internals.


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

Adamantium said:


> Must admit, that does sound very sensible, although now, I think I'd be falling towards stage 4.5.
> 
> It's a big jump up in numbers and really is the limit of stock internals.


Is 4.5 Stage 4 + downpipes? Or is it Stage 4 + downpipes + turbos?


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

grahamc said:


> Is 4.5 Stage 4 + downpipes? Or is it Stage 4 + downpipes + turbos?


Same thing!


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Adamantium said:


> Same thing!


No it's not!

Stage 4.5 is turbos and downpipes over Stage 4 (injectors, intakes, exhaust, remap).


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Sorry, misread in my haste.

Stage 4.5 is turbos. Don't think downpipes are a requirement even for stage 5 but its just a name really.

Can't see anyone bothering with a turbo swap without doing pipes.

I think of 4.5 vs 5 as just different turbos. Price wise 5 comes with intercooler too.


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

The Vbox data is quite interesting comparing the different specs, anybody got any ideas how much extra bhp Johns 102 Ron fuel is likely to give him? It probably isn't a lot more than 25-50 bhp yet he is only 3 hundredths off Jamie's 800 bhp car 0-60 time, and is also faster than some of the stage 5 cars.


----------



## R35Audio (Jul 9, 2002)

I think stage 5 includes internals so you can breach 650 torque up to 750 which I think would be a big jump. It's probably about 7k more than stage 4.5

Funnily enough stage 4.5 used to be 4 plus down pipes buts that has been relegated to stage 4.25 now that there is a stage 1 turbo kit that makes up the stage 4.5 so 700 BHP is possible on stock internals.


----------



## Glgtr (May 21, 2012)

Stage 5 does not include internals.

For definitive reference on what is and is not included in specific stages.

Litchfield - Nissan GTR Performance Pack Upgrades - Litchfield Motors


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

barry P. said:


> The Vbox data is quite interesting comparing the different specs, anybody got any ideas how much extra bhp Johns 102 Ron fuel is likely to give him? It probably isn't a lot more than 25-50 bhp yet he is only 3 hundredths off Jamie's 800 bhp car 0-60 time, and is also faster than some of the stage 5 cars.


0-60mph is dependent on a lot of factors other than power, e.g. surface, tyres, temperature, LC, etc, etc. 

0-100mph and of course terminal speed in a 1/4 mile is a much more reliable guide to power.


----------



## Adamantium (Jun 24, 2002)

Johns is a 2011 car, which accounts for a lot o the 0-60 time.

Mine too.

Might be worth adding tag data as it distorts the statistics slightly.


----------

