Your ignoring the facts by listing irrelevant ones.

yes technically any car that is lightened will be faster, but the reason i said technically is because were not talking about Bmw's or any other car. were talking about the GTR as listed in this thread title.

So again making the GTR RWD and lighter
probably the simplest way would be to remove one of the cars two driveshaft and put a plug in the cars rear mounted transmission. Would this make the car faster? probably not the cars ATTESSA AWD sytem would probably go nuts trying to figure out what happened to the tourque in the front wheels.
So whats next to fix that problem? removing the ATTESSA sytem and all associated sensors, which can split torque to as much as 98% at launch to 50/50 along with its almost 50/50 weight distribution(ie reason for the rear mounted trans) But lets ditch that system its useless engineering. So now would the car be any faster around the turns? Probably not.
So whats next, custom spring rates and dampers. So now maybe the car would be faster youve got the power goin to the rear wheels and suspension to match. But wait now we forgot we haven't even lightened it that much all we did was remove one of the carbon fiber driveshaft. So next order of buisness would be to either beef up the rear end so it could take the power safely and remove the front differential and axles, or even put an LSX into it. After all that time and money spent you would be taking away the majority of thought and engineering that went into the car, and ruining what the car was made for "to perform like a supercar under all conditions" and then what would you have left? an over priced muscle car.

When if you really wanted to make the car faster around the corners all you could of done was turn up the boost and add some better tires. or just wait for the 530hp version or the V-spec

 

Are people still talking about this 7:38 number that Nissan claimed on "a partially wet track"? When are they going to explain how less hp and more weight = faster car? Ill believe that number when an independent source manages to snag it.

 

Irrelevant? I used a car that is built both in RWD and AWD and proved that the RWD is faster around the very same track used in comparison. That is as relevant as it gets. The only thing I see irrelevant is your constant banter like it is some technological feat to make the car RWD only.

There is no “technically” about it, it is a proven fact, no technicality exists if it is has been done. The make has nothing to do with a proven fact that a lighter car at the same power output will go faster around the same track. Because several manufacturers have made light weight version and even both RWD and AWD versions of their cars that went around the very same track. SO no technically about it.

You are making it more complex than it really needs to be. For years people and companies have produced or modified AWD cars into RWD cars. Nissan could make either variant regardless of the GTR designation. The next portion of your reply is idiotic rambling, companies like Porsche, BMW, and Jaguar have produced both variations of a single model for years, in fact the Porsche 911 used as a benchmark in this story (notice the relevancy) was made in both AWD and RWD variations with out much fan fare or complication. They all have complicated torque sensing and traction control systems, and somehow they managed to make cars in both drive modes.

Or just simply make it lighter, which by the way the company is doing in 2010, making a lighter variation. Wonder why? Oh that’s right BECAUSE IT IS FASTER AROUND THE TRACK! They must be a bunch of dumbasses. I am sure it will be nothing more than a bunch of carbon fiber body panels, higher power output, and $50,000 added price increase to justify its limited production.

 

^^^^^awesome argument...lol

i still think that the net "GT-R" is ugly as hell i dont like it all
dont know why, just dont.....and when they do release one here in the states, its gonna be watered down compared to the one's in Japan....

 

They just dynoed the GTR at 475whp with a very impressive curve. I may just believe that 7:38 after all.

 

It's from a Dynapack in another country. Don't believe anything until they come over here. And wasn't the 7:38 on race rubber?

And for the record, it would perform better in every category if it was lighter. I have no idea why this is even up for arguement. And AWD is benefital to a point, then RWD is the prefered method. Hence why the GT2s and big turbo 911 guys convert their cars back to RWD.

 

The 7:38 was on the shaved stock run flat tires. The same tires that will be on the US models.

 

Very nice.

I remember hearing somewhere it was on race rubber.

 

Yes its Irrelevant and ill show you why.

Constant Banter Huh? This is only your previous statement reworded in a different manner

Idiotic Rambling? Lets see your getting awfully defensive(please refrain from flattering me by letting me get you angry this is a simple debate) , and at the same time stating irrelevant facts as an attempt to make yourself look smarter. You are obviously missing the point here. I'm in no way saying that if nissan decided to come out with a RWD GTR it would be slower, but thats obviously not the case. so all your "rambling" about factory cars is once again Irrelevant.


??? Really we all know about the V-spec good for you for stating the obvious that has already been stated.

Now back to the point. heres the question that spawned all this.
Now what was my response

I really think this cant be helped but ill go into it again.
Converting a GTR to RWD now wouldnt be a simple easy or smart task. Ive already listed many of the problems that would come up in doing this therefore there is no need to say it again
So BIGBAKE: By posting up facts about how BMW made a awd and rwd version is irrelevant because although it does prove that the same car is technically faster in RWD trim. It doesn't prove a thing in this thread. Our conversation spawned of off a quote by 240sftw talking about someone making a hybrid Nissan by putting an LSX into it. There was nothing about Nissan making a factory LSX GTR or A Factory RWD GTR only hybrids. So if you would like to stay on track with the subject then you could of pointed out Subaru's being converted to RWD (even though all of them end up being used for straight line performance or drifting)
So all this talk about RWD cars always being faster will always be a technicality,especially when the cost and the amount of work done to the car outweighs its benefits. Otherwise every car would be RWD, and awd would become an obsolete technology. So ill say it again

Oh yeah and before you decide to make another post saying "OMG you dumbass RWD will always be faster, BMW this Porsche that theres no technically" Please expand your mind a little and take a look at WRC where all the cars are AWD so technically AWD is faster, or even better think about this which car would be faster around a track that consist of mainly turns no straight aways AWD or RWD. Please dont insert your foot in your mouth by saying that a RWD car would be faster in a smaller and tighter track. So therefore technically.....

 

It is obvious you cannot read something and then comprehend what is being said. I clearly stated the following:
Then your response……..

You need to read the final sentence in my first response. I was not talking about an engine swap, I said ditch the AWD and associated equipment to make it lighter so it would have faster lap times at The Ring. I never once again brought up the LSX swap. Learn to comprehend what is being said and you will probably have a better understanding of it. Everyone else seems to notice how ignorant your argument is, but you.

Not even close to being defensive or angry, in fact I find it entertaining that you are this full of your self that you think you are right when you simply skipped over a few key words and now look dumb.

Yet not once did I say anything about different racing venues. I have stated over and over again the RING, which is all, no other form of racing was ever mentioned. The relevancy that you cannot seem to get into with this topic, yet you claim someone else is being irrelevant. Is the word “SAME” throwing you off because I use it in front of the other word “TRACK”?