I Saw One For The First Time In My Life
bobbejaan
11-16-2003, 10:40 AM
today i saw paul walkers r34 at a fast an the furious event al zandvoort circuit in holland :D :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan :iceslolan
life is great
life is great
brettstar01
11-17-2003, 12:47 AM
wow o_0
nacho_nissan
11-17-2003, 07:42 PM
Poor skyline,those people are going to hell...
raysoh8
11-18-2003, 01:43 AM
except for the ugly paintjob that was slapped on to the skyline to appeal to ricers all over the world, the car was quite fast. i think there was many mods in the skylines, that would cost many digits. only i hate that show because they wrecked so many skylines and supras.
ZZII
11-18-2003, 08:34 AM
Yeah! that was BullSHIT! they had at least 5 R34s to work with, all copies of the original.
And i feel for that car. It's being used as a display when it's begging to go out and race. And that paintjob ain't do'n that car any good.
And i feel for that car. It's being used as a display when it's begging to go out and race. And that paintjob ain't do'n that car any good.
nacho_nissan
11-18-2003, 05:27 PM
except for the ugly paintjob that was slapped on to the skyline to appeal to ricers all over the world, the car was quite fast. i think there was many mods in the skylines, that would cost many digits. only i hate that show because they wrecked so many skylines and supras.
:disappoin I could tell u never red the SCC issue on the 2f2f cars!That skyline was almost all stock!The major upgrades were stickers,and nitrous! :grinno:
:disappoin I could tell u never red the SCC issue on the 2f2f cars!That skyline was almost all stock!The major upgrades were stickers,and nitrous! :grinno:
longlivetheZ
11-19-2003, 12:12 AM
I saw that issue. It was bull. All the stats were wrong....they had the 0-60 time for a supercharged S2000 with a bunch of other mods at, like, 7 seconds or something. A new Nissan Altima does it that fast. All of the stats on the cars were way slower then actual. Kinda made me mad.
And I totally agree with the post about how messed up it is that they totalled, like, 6 R34s, 4 C5 Vettes, 8 Supras, etc. Ever since reading that article, I have been a supporter of the 2F2F boycott.
And I totally agree with the post about how messed up it is that they totalled, like, 6 R34s, 4 C5 Vettes, 8 Supras, etc. Ever since reading that article, I have been a supporter of the 2F2F boycott.
nacho_nissan
11-19-2003, 07:25 PM
an altima SE is really fast,prety close to a s2000...5.5 seconds.And i mean the 2f2f article,the one with all the info on the 2f2f cars...
longlivetheZ
11-20-2003, 12:05 AM
an altima SE is really fast,prety close to a s2000...5.5 seconds.And i mean the 2f2f article,the one with all the info on the 2f2f cars...
Ehh....you're kidding, right? Altima SE.....5.5 Seconds.....
http://nissan.jbroadtests.com/Altima/2002/index4.php
7.3 Seconds for the auto...so say 7 for the manual....which is exactly what I said:
...they had the 0-60 time for a supercharged S2000 with a bunch of other mods at, like, 7 seconds or something. A new Nissan Altima does it that fast.
http://honda.jbroadtests.com/S2000/2002/index3.php
A STOCK S2000 has a 0-60 of 5.8. My point is, a supercharged S2000 has to be closer to 5....not the obsurd figure the magazine gave.
Ehhh.....I was talking about the 2F2F article....
Ever since reading that article, I have been a supporter of the 2F2F boycott.
Ehh....you're kidding, right? Altima SE.....5.5 Seconds.....
http://nissan.jbroadtests.com/Altima/2002/index4.php
7.3 Seconds for the auto...so say 7 for the manual....which is exactly what I said:
...they had the 0-60 time for a supercharged S2000 with a bunch of other mods at, like, 7 seconds or something. A new Nissan Altima does it that fast.
http://honda.jbroadtests.com/S2000/2002/index3.php
A STOCK S2000 has a 0-60 of 5.8. My point is, a supercharged S2000 has to be closer to 5....not the obsurd figure the magazine gave.
Ehhh.....I was talking about the 2F2F article....
Ever since reading that article, I have been a supporter of the 2F2F boycott.
GTR_in_SF
11-20-2003, 10:03 AM
A STOCK S2000 has a 0-60 of 5.8. My point is, a supercharged S2000 has to be closer to 5....not the obsurd figure the magazine gave.
Ehhh.....I was talking about the 2F2F article....
I think you should have read the article instead of just looking at the numbers posted in the article. The article clearly stated that most of the cars used for the movie were already trashed and in worse shape than if the cars were stock.
The NOS bottles in the skyline weren't even connected and were there just for show.
The numbers they posted were what the got when they actually ran the cars used for the movie.
Sure, a supercharged S2000 may run a 5 if tuned properly, but not the S2000 used for the movie...
Ehhh.....I was talking about the 2F2F article....
I think you should have read the article instead of just looking at the numbers posted in the article. The article clearly stated that most of the cars used for the movie were already trashed and in worse shape than if the cars were stock.
The NOS bottles in the skyline weren't even connected and were there just for show.
The numbers they posted were what the got when they actually ran the cars used for the movie.
Sure, a supercharged S2000 may run a 5 if tuned properly, but not the S2000 used for the movie...
taranaki
11-20-2003, 01:43 PM
Guys,guys,guys......... :rolleyes:
What you see in films isn't real.They use all kinds of editng and special effects,they may have had one or two genuine tuned vehicles for some of the work,but you can bet that most of the cars on the show circuit are just dressed up for effect,or have been thrashed to death and given a makeover.
I remember working a show that featured 'The General Lee' from the Dukes of Hazzard,the car was displayed with the hood closed.When I asked why they didn't want to show the motor,the guy told me that most of the usable running gear ,carb,radiator etc had been pirated after this particular General had almost snapped in half during a jump stunt.The panel and paint had been fixed up for show purposes,but the motor wouldn't run, and the chassis was so badly buckled that the car would be undriveable.
What you see in films isn't real.They use all kinds of editng and special effects,they may have had one or two genuine tuned vehicles for some of the work,but you can bet that most of the cars on the show circuit are just dressed up for effect,or have been thrashed to death and given a makeover.
I remember working a show that featured 'The General Lee' from the Dukes of Hazzard,the car was displayed with the hood closed.When I asked why they didn't want to show the motor,the guy told me that most of the usable running gear ,carb,radiator etc had been pirated after this particular General had almost snapped in half during a jump stunt.The panel and paint had been fixed up for show purposes,but the motor wouldn't run, and the chassis was so badly buckled that the car would be undriveable.
nacho_nissan
11-20-2003, 10:01 PM
the 2003 altima SE has a 3.5 V6 245hp engine,essentially the same one used in the 350z(not exactly).this altima,as nissan claims, does a 0-60 in 6.3 with 5-speed tranny.some magazine brought it down to 6 seconds flat in 0-60!
flylwsi
11-22-2003, 03:14 PM
you guys are retarded.
gtr_in_sf has it completely correct.
go back and read the articles again about how worked over and beaten those cars were. then consider their times and performance #'s.
the original skyline that the movie car was modelled off of is/was craig lieberman's r34, which was a gorgeous royal blue. 3 bottles of nitrous (not naws).
craig bought the car, which was originally known as "the blackbird". if you know your US skyline history, you'll realize just how serious the car was, and how insanely fast it was.
craig ditched the car b/c he got tired of having crowds drooling over it when he parked, couldn't get drive thru food, and had all sorts of people wanting to race him, all the time.
he sold it for a diablo.
i'm not supporting or siding with craig, but that's the info i've found from Nopi Street mag.
gtr_in_sf has it completely correct.
go back and read the articles again about how worked over and beaten those cars were. then consider their times and performance #'s.
the original skyline that the movie car was modelled off of is/was craig lieberman's r34, which was a gorgeous royal blue. 3 bottles of nitrous (not naws).
craig bought the car, which was originally known as "the blackbird". if you know your US skyline history, you'll realize just how serious the car was, and how insanely fast it was.
craig ditched the car b/c he got tired of having crowds drooling over it when he parked, couldn't get drive thru food, and had all sorts of people wanting to race him, all the time.
he sold it for a diablo.
i'm not supporting or siding with craig, but that's the info i've found from Nopi Street mag.
longlivetheZ
11-23-2003, 11:44 PM
gtr_in_sf has it completely correct.
I know that.
go back and read the articles again about how worked over and beaten those cars were. then consider their times and performance #'s.
I know that.
3 bottles of nitrous (not naws).
naws......that friggin rocks, man.
craig bought the car, which was originally known as "the blackbird". if you know your US skyline history, you'll realize just how serious the car was, and how insanely fast it was.
Ehh...US Skyline History....what history...there isn't really much. I don't doubt that the car was painfully fast.
craig ditched the car b/c he got tired of having crowds drooling over it when he parked, couldn't get drive thru food, and had all sorts of people wanting to race him, all the time.
Ha...I could only imagine the amount of droolage. People used to gather around my Dad's Porsche 944 sometimes. Such events baffle me to this day.
There we go...a Diablo...that won't draw any attention........
I know that.
go back and read the articles again about how worked over and beaten those cars were. then consider their times and performance #'s.
I know that.
3 bottles of nitrous (not naws).
naws......that friggin rocks, man.
craig bought the car, which was originally known as "the blackbird". if you know your US skyline history, you'll realize just how serious the car was, and how insanely fast it was.
Ehh...US Skyline History....what history...there isn't really much. I don't doubt that the car was painfully fast.
craig ditched the car b/c he got tired of having crowds drooling over it when he parked, couldn't get drive thru food, and had all sorts of people wanting to race him, all the time.
Ha...I could only imagine the amount of droolage. People used to gather around my Dad's Porsche 944 sometimes. Such events baffle me to this day.
There we go...a Diablo...that won't draw any attention........
longlivetheZ
11-24-2003, 12:06 AM
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march03/lieberman/images/skylinessshot2_tn.jpg
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march03/lieberman/
I kinda hate what these movies did for the Skyline and Supra...they're so mainstream now. Oh well. Still amazing cars.
http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/march03/lieberman/
I kinda hate what these movies did for the Skyline and Supra...they're so mainstream now. Oh well. Still amazing cars.
flylwsi
11-25-2003, 10:45 AM
"US Skyline History....what history...there isn't really much"
one of the first cars here was the blackbird.
that's "historic" is it not?
it was important, no?
slight sarcasm on my part, yes, but if you know anything about skylines in the states, you know that car.
if you know all the other things that i said, why do you so blatantly call the magazine out for making up bad numbers?
one of the first cars here was the blackbird.
that's "historic" is it not?
it was important, no?
slight sarcasm on my part, yes, but if you know anything about skylines in the states, you know that car.
if you know all the other things that i said, why do you so blatantly call the magazine out for making up bad numbers?
longlivetheZ
11-25-2003, 11:07 PM
Hadn't heard of the Blackbird before, but I know what it is now....know lots about the cars...don't know much about the history of them in the U.S.
I don't think they should have posted those numbers. They make the cars look bad. *I* know they had been dogged beyond believe and driven a lot and blah blah blah. My musclecar friend was reading that magazine in the store when I read it and was givin me shit about how the muscle car they used that, despite it's "massive fuel leak that is the four barrel carb." (I remember a line to that effect in the artical very vividly for some reason), was still keeping up with all these modded cars. It just kinda annoyed me.
I don't think they should have posted those numbers. They make the cars look bad. *I* know they had been dogged beyond believe and driven a lot and blah blah blah. My musclecar friend was reading that magazine in the store when I read it and was givin me shit about how the muscle car they used that, despite it's "massive fuel leak that is the four barrel carb." (I remember a line to that effect in the artical very vividly for some reason), was still keeping up with all these modded cars. It just kinda annoyed me.
flylwsi
11-26-2003, 05:41 PM
your muscle car friends can laugh all they want...
the yenko look-alike sucked as well...
"I don't think they should have posted those numbers. They make the cars look bad. "
they only look bad to someone who hasn't read the article.
they state that, in all fairness, these cars were beat. and that they were not performing up to "par" because they were most likely out of tune, worn out, etc. the clutches were bad, all that good stuff.
just b/c the numbers were bad, doesn't mean they shouldn't post them.
people bitch about companies that doctor dyno numbers for products, but now you're kinda takin the same route, and preferring that they not show the real numbers... (and i'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's the same idea)
fuck anyone who doesn't take the time to read the entire article. that's the only viewpoint you really need to have.
if someone wants to go and find the performance numbers and say how they suck... great.
but if that same someone would have ACTUALLY READ the article, they'd know the truth.
ignorance is bliss, yes, but i've got no respect for people who CHOOSE to be ignorant...
the yenko look-alike sucked as well...
"I don't think they should have posted those numbers. They make the cars look bad. "
they only look bad to someone who hasn't read the article.
they state that, in all fairness, these cars were beat. and that they were not performing up to "par" because they were most likely out of tune, worn out, etc. the clutches were bad, all that good stuff.
just b/c the numbers were bad, doesn't mean they shouldn't post them.
people bitch about companies that doctor dyno numbers for products, but now you're kinda takin the same route, and preferring that they not show the real numbers... (and i'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's the same idea)
fuck anyone who doesn't take the time to read the entire article. that's the only viewpoint you really need to have.
if someone wants to go and find the performance numbers and say how they suck... great.
but if that same someone would have ACTUALLY READ the article, they'd know the truth.
ignorance is bliss, yes, but i've got no respect for people who CHOOSE to be ignorant...
longlivetheZ
11-26-2003, 11:43 PM
Ehhh...what the fuck man....I read most of the artical....I was standing in the fucking Borders book store just flipping through...who gives a shit. I don't care....you make it sound like I'm in denial or something....fuck off.
flylwsi
11-27-2003, 03:54 PM
what's up hostile?
i didn't say you.
read what i wrote. it's not throwing anything in your face, but you said that they shouldn't have posted the numbers.
why is everyone online so fucking hostile now?
geezus fucking christ.
i come here to help people out, answer questions, and be of general good knowledge.
i make some clarifications, and you're on my ass now?
fuck that shit bro.
i need to back down obviously, right? :rolleyes:
i didn't say you.
read what i wrote. it's not throwing anything in your face, but you said that they shouldn't have posted the numbers.
why is everyone online so fucking hostile now?
geezus fucking christ.
i come here to help people out, answer questions, and be of general good knowledge.
i make some clarifications, and you're on my ass now?
fuck that shit bro.
i need to back down obviously, right? :rolleyes:
longlivetheZ
12-01-2003, 12:00 AM
Ummm.........I don't care........
flylwsi
12-02-2003, 10:38 AM
great post...
if you don't care, why'd you post?
do i sense myself backing down? no... i'm just going to keep egging you on if you keep posting... have a lovely day.
if you don't care, why'd you post?
do i sense myself backing down? no... i'm just going to keep egging you on if you keep posting... have a lovely day.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026