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..