New GTR

barryogen · Post by **barryogen** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:29 pm

rollaholic wrote:dont think it has two gearboxes, just a driveshaft from engine in the front to box in the rear (tricky to do as the crank turns alot faster than the wheels) like those horrible crossfire things, then a second driveshaft back to the front of the car to drive the front wheels.

thats what I'm saying... from reading a few more of those images, specifically the one I tried to link to, it mentions a front and rear transaxel.

d1 mule · Post by **d1 mule** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:50 pm

there wouldnt be any need for a front trans axel as well as a rear one,

Crank goes to d shaft, d shaft to REAR transaxel, gets geared down, puts drive to rear wheels, another dshaft goes from Transaxel to front diff, drive to front wheels, hey presto!

and i doubt a big transaxel would fit up front as well as a big horse V6

pureadrenalin · Post by **pureadrenalin** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:32 am

best thing about the new GTR.....
it means the new supra, rx7, etc will be just around the corner.
Toyota, Mazda, etc can't let Nissan be the only Jap car company with a new release poor mans super car.

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:37 am

reading about its construction (hand built engine and trans) the use of carbon fibre and the price in the UK..... i reckon it will the most exspensive GT-R yet. wouldnt be surprised if it gets near 150k

barryogen · Post by **barryogen** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:34 am

pureadrenalin wrote:best thing about the new GTR.....
it means the new supra, rx7, etc will be just around the corner.
Toyota, Mazda, etc can't let Nissan be the only Jap car company with a new release poor mans super car. :)

Don't forget Hondas offerings... rumour of a 5l v10 has been going round for ages... I have a Topgear mag from a few months that goes on a bit about them all, with expectations that they(4/3 of them, Nissan, Honda, Lexus/Toyota) would be available in the next 12 months.

The Lexus seemed like the most "streetable", followed by the Nissan, then Toyota, followed by Honda.

Hell, if mazda is in there as well, the coming 12 months should be interesting... what would they use for an engine though... twin/quad turbo 26B or something?

Imminant world financial collapse usually happens when the world goes nutty over supercars... can't remember what it was in 87, although the F1 was announced in 88 from memory.

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:35 am

87 would be the F40 and 959 iirc

barryogen · Post by **barryogen** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:50 am

Mr Revhead wrote:87 would be the F40 and 959 iirc

a quick read of the articles on wikipedia suggest you are correct.

Lith · Post by **Lith** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:33 pm

Savour the moment

I think it will be the uprise of the Japanese supercar. Shame its looking like what we could well be lining up to experience is the roar of bigger cube >300kw turbo V6s and nasty V8 and V10s soon to come may well be the swan song of mightily tuned internal combustion engines

barryogen · Post by **barryogen** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:40 pm

Lith wrote:I think it will be the uprise of the Japanese supercar. Shame its looking like what we could well be lining up to experience is the roar of bigger cube >300kw turbo V6s and nasty V8 and V10s soon to come may well be the swan song of mightily tuned internal combustion engines :(

There is nothing wrong with big cube v engines... at least their using some decent tech in them as opposed to the 9 million year old designs the yanks seem to use.

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:41 pm

uprise of the japanese supercar?
you mean the begining!
hasnt been a japanese supercar yet!
closest would be the NSX. and that wasnt a true super car!

Lith · Post by **Lith** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:54 pm

barryogen wrote:There is nothing wrong with big cube v engines... at least their using some decent tech in them as opposed to the 9 million year old designs the yanks seem to use.

What you bleating on about?? My tone with the word "Nasty" was in the same way you'd describe the teeth on a cougar. Only a negative tone if you are the enemy....

d1 mule · Post by **d1 mule** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:37 pm

Mr Revhead wrote:closest would be the NSX. and that wasnt a true super car!

\

therer is nothing "super" about the NSX IMO infact any GTR is a far superior car IMO

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:41 pm

driven both have you?
i havnt :cry:

but i think we're getting onto a completly different debate!

Lith · Post by **Lith** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:50 pm

d1 mule wrote:therer is nothing "super" about the NSX IMO infact any GTR is a far superior car IMO

I've driven plenty of GT-Rs, been in an NSX though have to admit never driven one in anger - but its clear thats purely opinion, good thing you used IMO there

Each NSX has been more of a supercar than each equivalent GT-R in MY opinion. Makes you wonder what Honda are going to do to beat down the GT-R this time!!!

Snoozin · Post by **Snoozin** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:06 pm

Mr Revhead wrote:closest would be the NSX. and that wasnt a true super car!

Cos it was far too easy to live with :lol:

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:09 pm

exactly!

but also coz with a V6 it just missed out on all it needed.....

Snoozin · Post by **Snoozin** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:10 pm

Mr Revhead wrote:exactly!

but also coz with a V6 it just missed out on all it needed.....

Don't forget the mightily unreliable XJ220 had a V6!

Post by **Mr Revhead** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:15 pm

yes but it also had 2 turbos! hence masses more power
but i still think i was wrong! a super car with a V6! wtf!

959 gets away 6 coz its a porsche

Adamal · Post by **Adamal** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:07 pm

Snoozin wrote:
Mr Revhead wrote:exactly!

but also coz with a V6 it just missed out on all it needed.....

Don't forget the mightily unreliable XJ220 had a V6!

You can bag GT-R's and other Japanese sports cars... But don't you ever bad mouth the XJ220

Volodkovich · Post by **Volodkovich** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:23 pm

rollaholic wrote:dont think it has two gearboxes, just a driveshaft from engine in the front to box in the rear (tricky to do as the crank turns alot faster than the wheels) like those horrible crossfire things, then a second driveshaft back to the front of the car to drive the front wheels.

Errrm? Most cars are overdriven in 5th gear so the driveshaft turns faster than the crank. 4th is normally around 1:1 ratio.

Heaps of cars use transaxles in the back. Alfa 75's, porsche 944 / 928 etc