Nismo Z-Tune Skyline, sooooooo sexy Options

[funnyboy117]

skyline

enjoy

[saleeka]

and to make it even more crazy/cool, the entire run of them were used GT-Rs that Nissan purchased back to build off of

[97sccelica]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's, with out all the technology of today, namely fuel injection, forced induction, and improved tire technology.

whats that thing run on, C16? and $175k for a used car?

honestly, the skyline gtr's are nice cars, but people hold them up higher than they should be

This post has been edited by 97sccelica: Mar 22, 2005 - 2:58 AM

[ghostdog]

sweet car ..

I also like how they misspelled production in the subheader

NISMO Z-Tune Skyline: The Quickest Pruduction Car Ever.

[saleeka]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...

[SinisterWhisper]

i have a hard time beliving any car from the 60's did that too seeing how they tend to have traction problems. (nice burnouts though ) as for this huliking pos i dont get it. 175k for a car that is a waste of space?

[nik]

i'd buy one but thats me

[FallenHero]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.

[97sccelica]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

total, around 30 of them were made, 7 liter engines, they had no warranties, lots of weight reduction, they were severly under rated and every gas station sold leaded gas

they were drag cars sold by dealers, just like that Z tune is a race car sold by dealers

its really not that hard to believe

most muscle cars are slow now(13's) because of the gas crisis and smog laws which dictated the removal of leaded gas from the pumps

the owners of the cars lowered the compression ratios, installed smaller carbs, switched to different final drive and maybe even replaced the massive engines with smaller ones, oh, and the cars have aged around 30 years

[FallenHero]

what was the name of that Buick grand national that was so tough? GT-X? I believe it was in the 12's from factory, and that was during the 80's.

[Jdog1385]

what was the name of that Buick grand national that was so tough? GT-X? I believe it was in the 12's from factory, and that was during the 80's.

yea the buick grand national GT-X...awesome car.

i love those vents by the hood on that skyline.

[turboinduction]

what was the name of that Buick grand national that was so tough? GT-X? I believe it was in the 12's from factory, and that was during the 80's.

yea the buick grand national GT-X...awesome car.

i love those vents by the hood on that skyline.
[right][snapback]260980[/snapback][/right]

Correct me if I'm wront - but isn't it the GNX? And it really wasn't that fast.

That Z-Tune is nice though. I'm glad import companies have partners like Nismo and TRD to fix up their cars. My SpecV is going to be a complete R-Tune by the end of May.

-Ti

[spunky393]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).

[FallenHero]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).
[right][snapback]261027[/snapback][/right]

My dad had a 69 SS with the 396. he asid it was quite the trip.

I've not researched it, but it doesn't make much sense for the vette engine to be less powerful than the chevelle... Actually, I thought the vette had higher compression...?

And my uncle used to drag race shelbys back in the day with one of the pettys... I forget which.

Jon=former old school muscle car enthusiast(still is to some degree)

[SlowCelica94]

Ok, as usually, everyone (cept one or two) is full of ****. Where do I start?

The Z-tune is nice. SCC has a big article on it that I just read last night. It's a lot like the FireHawk. Cool, limited edition, but people won't buy em cuz their expensive and don't have a use for them. Don't get me wrong, the Z-Tune is great. Every frickin vent and intake in the bumper has a function. This is nothing short of skyline perfection.

To the muscle. 10's stock? Please provide year, make, model, engine type, gears, tranny, ect. My uncle raced in the NHRA. He's ok, I mean he did only win street class 2 years in a row. If you think I'm BSing, look him up, Paul Gabirson. He had a camaro and it was running, ohhhhh, about mid 10s. And she wasn't stock. If you look at a 350ci chevelle, they'll run a 15 now. 440 Charger? 14s or so. My point is, back then they were real fast. Now? A freakin SRT4 can take em. And that old vette beating the C5, I call BS. That had to be a special edition or molested by Yenko or Shelby.

The GNX didn't run a 12 from the factory, try a 13. And those rock, hardcore.

Also, the GTR z-tune is rated at 500hp and 400lbs. If you believe that, you're an idiot. Chevy did the same thing in 1967. They released a lil edition call Super Sport. It had FAR more hp then listed to make insurance cheaper.

Some of you really kill me. How is it when someone puts a bodykit on their car it's MADD DIZZZZOPE, but when Nissan builds a street legal race car, it's teh ghey? The engerning in that car is amazing. SO many parts came right from the GTR race car (forget what series)

[Mr_E]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's, with out all the technology of today, namely fuel injection, forced induction, and improved tire technology.

On anything with a turn, the Skyline will piss all over a 60's hotrod. Hell, a Civic type R will as well.

[FallenHero]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's, with out all the technology of today, namely fuel injection, forced induction, and improved tire technology.

On anything with a turn, the Skyline will piss all over a 60's hotrod. Hell, a Civic type R will as well.
[right][snapback]261680[/snapback][/right]

True enough, but I'd be smiling bigger with a 60's hotrod than I would in a Civic. they are strictly drag cars. When you turn they float like a beast, lol.

I searched and searched for the article, but havn't been able to find it. I think it was in 1996, so it's been a while (no wonder it's not on the web) but when I go home this weekend I will get it. 10 seconds stock... there were some, but I wouldn't call them factory.

who would own a 350 chevelle? the only one I have ever seen that was worthwile was a friend of mine that droped a LT-1 into a former BIgblock SS body.=nice.

The 1969 427 six pack was the most powerful factory corvette to ever be produced. It was economically rated at 435 hp, but the wheel figures were well over 500. You take a car that is a little over 3k pounds, put a 500+whp (and keep in mind, probably over 600lbs of torque) and you have a drag car like no other., and that is as factory as it can be. The only problem is keeping tires on it. With todays tires on one, and a decent clutch, you can get an instant smile on your face that most people will never understand. Those cars came with a (what I believe was called a T-10) but that might have been the older vettes.... it was a plain 4spd, and it got the job done.

Those old cars had the power, it was the weight that was the problem. in 69 Chevy also produced a few prototype ZL1???? I forget.. corvettes with the same 427, they came with an aluminum block and heads instead of iron. The were not rated from factory, GM just said "a bit over 600hp"

The tech was there, but they didn't need it at the time except for racing.


People are still knocking the Vette for using transverse leaf springs and not coil springs... they do this without noticing that the 50ishk vette still gave a beating to the newest 911 carrera on the trac (which I posted up the numbers of in the last thread like this)

As far as that skyline having more hp than listed for insurance purpises??? um. hm. The guys that buy those cars have enough money not to worry about the insurance. Trust me, if it had more than 500, they would have had it in the text=trying to sell more cars). The old chevells and such were marketed to 20-30 year old working class people that wanted to have some fun. they could afford the car, and the insurance, but GM didn't want them to have to pay a crazy amount=it was a different time. The people that GTR was made for have 4+car garages and millions of $'s to back up whatever they want.

[SlowCelica94]

You're an idiot. Nissan is rating hp lower then it really is. Just like GM use to. And the people who would buy this car don't have to millionares. The car is around 175,000. Expensive, yes, but I know ferreri worth a bit more. I live by Indianpolis and I see guys w/ nice houses (just 2 door garage) w/ lambos and rerri's. Now getting it over here and all....it's all besides my point.

If you good at it's motor and know anything about racing and competive pricing, you'll realize it's got more then 500hp.

[Mr_E]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's, with out all the technology of today, namely fuel injection, forced induction, and improved tire technology.

On anything with a turn, the Skyline will piss all over a 60's hotrod. Hell, a Civic type R will as well.
[right][snapback]261680[/snapback][/right]

True enough, but I'd be smiling bigger with a 60's hotrod than I would in a Civic. they are strictly drag cars. When you turn they float like a beast, lol.
[right][snapback]261715[/snapback][/right]

Hell yes.

I have a thing about a Charger R/T. A black one please.

[spunky393]

its not the quickest production car ever either if you consider the fact that mopar had some production cars hitting 10's in the late 60's[right][snapback]260544[/snapback][/right]

pssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok if you DO belive the factory times that they gave out, LOL, or the numbers that mags got with tuned cars claimed to be stock... I dont think any of the muscle cars could hit under 13.0 in real world time, PERIOD...
[right][snapback]260550[/snapback][/right]

My VERY FAVORITE article from a car magazine was back in the late 90's when the new (then) C5 vette came out... they ran it head to head with a bone stock 1969 Vette wiith the 427 and three deuces.


The 69 beat the C5 in every category but breaking and the cones. Avg track race time, 0-60, 1/4th mile, everything it OWNED the newer vette. You just cant fight against 500 rwhp. and yes, that is stock.(and yes, I know they were registered as 435rwhp, but we all know that was BS.)

Also, Shelby was producing cars back then that would crush the 69 vette. They might not have had the tech, but they also didn't have the emissions.

Jon=missing his old corvette.
[right][snapback]260638[/snapback][/right]

You're very knowledgable about theh rating of the 69 vette. But shelby had nothing on the chevelle in a drag. I'm talking about stock to stock, the 69 chevelle SS with a 427 rat from the factory was nearly un-beatable. Vette didn't touch it. They rated the chevelle at 500 from factory for insurance and production reasons, but they were really easily putting out over 675. Then non-stock, one of the only things you would really have to do is get rid of the hydralic cams and the crap-ass carb. You would be immediatly running another 100-150 hp through the engine (depending on grind and carb of course).
[right][snapback]261027[/snapback][/right]

My dad had a 69 SS with the 396. he asid it was quite the trip.

I've not researched it, but it doesn't make much sense for the vette engine to be less powerful than the chevelle... Actually, I thought the vette had higher compression...?

And my uncle used to drag race shelbys back in the day with one of the pettys... I forget which.

Jon=former old school muscle car enthusiast(still is to some degree)
[right][snapback]261564[/snapback][/right]

Ask your dad how heavy that chevelle was. It'll surprise you, they were much lighter than anybody would even dream about..

[FallenHero]

You're an idiot. Nissan is rating hp lower then it really is. Just like GM use to. And the people who would buy this car don't have to millionares. The car is around 175,000. Expensive, yes, but I know ferreri worth a bit more. I live by Indianpolis and I see guys w/ nice houses (just 2 door garage) w/ lambos and rerri's. Now getting it over here and all....it's all besides my point.

If you good at it's motor and know anything about racing and competive pricing, you'll realize it's got more then 500hp.
[right][snapback]261735[/snapback][/right]

I'm an idiot ehh? I'm sorry, I don't really get angry, but what the hell were you thinking when you wrote that phrase? Because we differ in opinion (in which I think I am 100% correct, and will soon respond to that part of your post) you call me an idiot. That is 'foolish' sir. It's is 'foolish' for you to write such things. Little 'big man' comments such as that are useless, and serve no purpose in legitimate conversation. Agh, honestly,,,

Now. On to the ignorance, which means lack of understanding or knowledge.

I have already explained why GM (a freaking long time ago) under rated their cars. That much is Fact positive. It's the truth and EVERYONE will agree with that.

Now, I will preface this by saying that Yes, it is possible that Nissan underrated the cars power. Why? I have no idea why they would do such a thing. Then again, I don't know why Coke now comes with a lime tasting version. In both cases (assuming Nissan did under rate the car's power) the sales team made huge mistakes. They were, to quote you, idiot... or idiots in this case.

Now, lets shift over a bit. That car is $175k

Kbb lists the price for a BRAND NEW Porsche 911 TT (one of the single most powerful and well balanced super cars on the planet) at almost $140k. Now, this (like the skyline) is a Super car. A car that you do not drive every day, one that you just don't worry about gas mileage on, a car that you buy when you have money to burn. When you have the money to buy a car like this, insurance prices are the last thing you care about. People with millions don't walk into upper level car dealers and ask what the insurance is going to be,,, that is insanity. They would say, if you have to ask about that, you can't afford the car.

That is as plain as I can put it.

As for the people that buy a $200k car not having (we'll say) a million dollars. That would mean they have no brain at all. That's spending twenty percent of your income on an auto that you will rarely use, and will decrease Drastically in value. Also, with the car in question, I doubt it will be running say.. Five years down the road. Then again, we both agree that the engine in question is capable of FAR more than 500whp... but this is a production car. So, maybe they have the car set up to have a longer life rather than Gobs and Gobs of power. There are factors here that we might not be aware of.

Why in the hell would Nissan say the car had less power than it actually does?

1. Insurance prices= people wouldn't care
2. to sell fewer cars... because that is what would happen... just like the new Evo and the STI suba. People hear the STI has "300hp" and immediately think, wow, that is a mean car! Does it have 300 hp... not even close. The factory just had a big number up there to sell more cars. That is, after all, what the car business is all about.


My only guess is that they are running the car conservatively so it will be more reliable. Either that or they ran a pole about what the best hp number was and it came out as 500...

Lastly, don't you dare call me an idiot. I'm a Junior in College taking eight classes. I have, up to this very semester, had a full time job. Through all of this I have held a 4.0 GPA. I also have more automotive knowledge than 99% of people breathing today. Calling people 'little names' is not exactly good policy.


Jon

And that sir, is my last post in this thread.

This post has been edited by FallenHero: Mar 25, 2005 - 12:44 AM

[Mr_E]

This skyline is a last hurrah for the breed, and it's for collectors.

I doubt you'll see them driven in anger. Simply because if you want a fast skyline, you buy a decent R34 Vspec II for 60K and spend the other 100K modfying it as you like.

500bhp will not cost 100K. 1000bhp reliably might.

[SlowCelica94]

Mr. E, we're paying for their R&D and name, most likely. You gotta look at all the engineering that went into the aerodynamics, all vents work blah blah blah. But your route of buying a GTR and modding it yourself is the route many other would take for obvious reasons. Like you said, collectors car.

Wow, I really ticked you off with that idiot comment. In case you failed to notice, at this point we're just running in circles. All I'm gonna do from this point is re-state myself, then you will too, ect ect. What surprises me, is for all your auto knowledge you claim, you're a bit different. All the real smart car guys I know are real into going fast, or performing well. And you....you painted your dash silver, thus lossing all automotive knowledge credibility with me.

But hey, I bet it looks great.

[turboinduction]

Mr. E, we're paying for their R&D and name, most likely. You gotta look at all the engineering that went into the aerodynamics, all vents work blah blah blah. But your route of buying a GTR and modding it yourself is the route many other would take for obvious reasons. Like you said, collectors car.

Wow, I really ticked you off with that idiot comment. In case you failed to notice, at this point we're just running in circles. All I'm gonna do from this point is re-state myself, then you will too, ect ect. What surprises me, is for all your auto knowledge you claim, you're a bit different. All the real smart car guys I know are real into going fast, or performing well. And you....you painted your dash silver, thus lossing all automotive knowledge credibility with me.

But hey, I bet it looks great.
[right][snapback]262236[/snapback][/right]

Yea, I agree its just going to go back and forth. But why insult him for "painting your dash silver". 1. Its a dash kit, looks like brushed aluminum. And 2. Its for comestic purposes only - so people and the driver can admire such a beautiful car. Comestic.... much like Nitrous buttoned steering wheel, 4" exhaust tip, clear turn singals and your side markers. But hey, I bet they look great

-Ti

[SlowCelica94]

Hm, I suppose I'd look at ur profile so I could critize your mods too, but everything's *top secret* with you. Like we all give a care what mods you have planned.

FYI, I had nitrous in my car, and it was hooked up to streeting wheel buttons. The steering wheel was also my best friend's, but he died when I was sixteen, so I have in there as a respect to him. It feels great too. As for my "4inch exhuast", most fart cans are. And mine's HKS, my muffler's worth more then your whole exhaust.

Are people just trying to join Slow's $hit List these days? Or is it the cool thing to gang up on him? This isn't you arugement TI. This is just you being "that guy"

[Exile04]

yall are stupid i already got that car on Gt4 and its hot...haha sry had to add