Talk:Nissan Skyline

RB30 Engine Transplants

What does anybody think about adding a section mentioning the trend for transplanting the RB30 engine into the Skyline? Banalt 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea, but the topic is covered more or less on the RB Engine page.. I'm not sure it's overly essential thus.Dread Specter 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My uncle Lee has an R33GT-s skyline, he has constructed it so it goes much faster than most GTR standard versions. Many people choose to buy broken down and/or torn apart skylines just for the pure pleasure of knowing that it was you who did it. Take Jacob Modica with his BLITZ egnition sports engine. aparently he made that car from a template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.104.147 (talk • contribs) 04:48, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

GT-R's & non GT-R's

What is the deal with splitting up (in particular, R32, R33 and R34 sections) the short model summary's into GT-R and non GT-R models? This has been done with R33 and R34 but not the R32 section? For consistancy's sake should the R32 section have the GT-R models listed seperately too? (SkylineObsession 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Information that don't make sense ; please review

"The names were brought into line with the home U.S. and Japanese markets with the launch of the FJR30 series in 1981". That part of the article reads like the skyline was introduced in the US with the dr30 series, which is false as far as I know ( No skyline were sold by nissan in the US).

Also, someone wrote that "the skyline was introduced in mainstream by Gran turismo", or so. That's not factual, so I'm removing it. I don't think there is any general consensus about that statement. Dread Specter 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• When I rewrote the R30 section earlier this month I extensively reworded that first line (and removed the false USA reference); it was actually meant to convey the fact that from the R30 series onwards the car was now universally known as the Nissan Skyline across all of the various export markets. For example in Australia and New Zealand, previous generations were sold as the Datsun 240K and Datsun 280C up until that point. Hope that helps your understanding of it. Decypher 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Thanks for clarifying that information. Dread Specter 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

External links section

Apart from the potential size it could become i think informative websites and (Skyline) related car club websites should be both allowed in this section, and clubs should be allowed whether or not it is a localised club or not - some clubs can have a hard time attracting new members and having a link to their site on this would be invaluable.

However i think at the minimum the club should be officially incorporated or otherwise as a genuine car club, i can personally vouch for Skylines Downunder (skylinesdownunder.com) and Southern Skyline Enthusiasts (southernskylines.com) - both are incorporated and well established.

If fansites are included then the page will become redicuously long, i had my site in that section for a while (godzilla.netfirms.com) but won't be including it again for a number of reasons.

I just thought i'd bring this up as a few people seem to be cropping the list of external sites every now and then without (seemingly) too much thought behind it. User:SkylineObsession

• In my opinion, car club websites don't belong here. Let's not forget that wikipedia is, afterall, an encyclopedia. In a real encyclopedia, you wouldn't find any links to those kinds of website (even if there was enough room to put them), simply because the goal here is to inform the people about the car, and not to recruit them into car websites. Google can help people join car clubs, if they want to. And also, no matter how notorious skylines australia is, there isn't a single article about that forum, nor any mention of that forum anywhere in wikipedia ! That means that this forum doesn't qualify for notoriety I guess, and that also means that this link isn't needed, as are any other good websites that are forums, IMO... Let's try to prevent link overloading here, and keep the links to a useful minimum. That's at least what the template says (Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. )Dread Specter 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but people can sometimes find out a lot more about their car by visiting a car club website so that itself should be reason enough for them to stay. But if you're really that aligned to the rules then perhaps a HUGE remove-all-the-inappropriate/personal-site-links mission should be undertaken, which would involve editing thousands of pages i suspect. User:SkylineObsession

• I agree with Dread Specter. Editors are seemingly unaware of Wikipedia:External links. There are search engines to find that stuff. I think the other non-forum links are also unnecessary. But if there are to be any external links they need to be of a certain quality. There was an under-construction website full of spelling errors that clearly didn't belong there. I don't think a motoring journalist's road test of a car belongs there either. JBSkyline is better, but I still think unnecessary. Also the ongoing edit war about the membership fee of certain UK clubs - for goodness sake! RB30DE 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reason behind the edit war behind membership fees: If Wikipedia is going to direct people to a site that they have to pay to join, they have a right to know in my opinion Banalt 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• May I also add that even thus the section was cleaned a while ago, an influx of new external links is being added, some of them totaly unnotorious, like Russia nismo club, or Sweden Skyline club. No offense intented here, but I don't think anyone cares about those sites, and certainly, no one who looks at the "Skyline" article in wikipedia will go visit the biggest nimso club in russia, or a skyline club in a country totaly unrelated to where this car was sold. Think about it. If you know nothing about a certain car, lets say a anssiN enilykS, will you go look on every single country's biggest forum, or you will go on a reputed, credible source of information, like the manifacturer's website ? and lets also try to get the big picture here. When you go on the Rx-7's entry in wiki, or the Supra's , or the Lancer Evo's, do you see links to all the cars clubs in every single country ? No. Same should be with the skyline.

That's my opinion. Dread Specter 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• If there's a Enilyks club for a given country, there's obviously a Enilyks community, so what determines whether the community is valid for inclusion here? (I would tend to cull them all, but I know that's not sustainable, they will be re-added.) If it's based on Enilyks sales in a particular territory - the cars were not sold in North America, so those clubs should disappear - Singapore might be a more worthy inclusion on those grounds, but I know that won't be accepted by the masses either. Perhaps English language could be another criterion? Swedish link from Swedish wiki, Russian from Russian, etc. I expect the list will continue to grow/trim/grow/trim. Never mind. RB30DE 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right Banalt, I wasn't aware of that edit war, but I agree with you. It becomes some kind of publicity for that website to advertise it here. Dread Specter 02:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think you'd find that sort of information in an encyclopaedia though, and paying membership fees for a car club is hardly exceptional, unreasonable, or notable. Most any sort of incorporated body will have fees, and at least one other club on the list also has fees. I think it's not an issue. I also think people will quickly discover any fees themselves when they investigate any given car club. RB30DE 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're right on your first message rb30, obviously, there are car clubs for any given country for a certain vehicle if even a small amount of them are available there. To a certain point, there can even be a car enthusiats club in a contry where that perticular vehicle isn't even sold ! So yes, there should definitely be restrictions on what kind of links should be put there. I think your solution is rather appropriate, that is, posting links that concern only english languge on the english wikipedia article. But there is also a notoriety problem with most of the links, and their revelencies are doubtful most of the time. I think that only skylines australia should be put there (I'm personally a member of GTRC, and I'm, canadian, but I think it is a known fact in the skyline community that skylines australia is THE benchmark in terms of information, and that's basically the only reason why any car clubs should be listed. Maybe this one should be kept and put as an external link, but I do think that the car club section has no valid reason to be there. Obviously, unaware editors will repetedly add links to x country's car club, but I do think that for the sake of the lenght of the article, those should be removed as they are added. At worst, keep the most notorious club form relevent countries (Canada, New Zeland, Australia, UK and Japan, namely) where a substancial amount of Skylines already are imported, and who have perticular information specefic to the country (i.e. GTRC's section "Legalese", about the laws applicable to skylines in canada specifically, for example). And I don't recall if it'S possible, but maybe a partial protection could be added to the external links section in order to prevent unaware users from adding new links everytime. As for the appropriateness of mentionning the entry fee for a certain car club, well in the present format of the section, it does seem adequate to me that this information be mentionned. Dread Specter 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• You raise another item that I think should be deleted - specific car importing laws for each country - that's not a property of the Nissan Skyline. If the entry fee is added - how about something restrained like "Club X - Fee Y"? (Previously there was stuff like "but you have to pay £25" or "the only free club in the UK".) RB30DE 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with you on both terms. In the case importation laws section would be removed, it would be important to keep a few links in the external link section regarding this issue for certain countries (i.e. link to GTRC's legalese section), IMHO. Even thus this topic might not necesairly belong to an encyclopedia entry, it sure does belong to a "futher reading" topic, which is covered thoroughly on the major forums covering Skylines. This entry rather belongs to the different agencies responsible for vehicle regulations (i.e. Transport canada's page on wiki), rather than on the actual cars themselves. Dread Specter 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• A link to Grey import vehicles would also help with replacing the stuff that's there now. RB30DE 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that links to clubs etc that aren't in english shouldn't be on the english version of this page. And perhaps Skyline clubs in countries where there are not many of them (USA?) probably don't need to be on here either. Really only clubs from the UK, New Zealand and Australia belong here i think (Japanese ones wouldn't be in english?). As far as i'm aware, New Zealand still has the second highest amount of Nissan Skylines in the world after Japan. Australia i think is third followed by the UK i assume. Skylines Downunder (NZ) was one of the first Skyline clubs out there and was the one used by Skylines Australia before they disbanded and formed SAU. Equally, Southern Skylines also used to be a part of Skylines Downunder until we disbanded from them and now we cover owners & fans of Skylines/Cefiro's/Laurels/Stagea's etc in the entire South Island of New Zealand (but still organise meets etc with SDU, we aren't a rivial club). SkylineObsession 07:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK there's a new UK Skyline club edit war going on, with Banalt at the helm again. [diff] He or she is replacing the link to the forum listed with a similar looking link that redirects to his/her forum. The correct link is: http://www.skyline-owners-club.com/. Banalt is replacing this with the misleading: http://www.skylineownersclub.com/. This link actually redirects to: http://www.skylineowners.com/forum/ which is the forum Banalt is pushing. The entry fee of the other club is now in the list. There's no reason to vandalise the page by replacing the link with a fake one. Please stop. RB30DE 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye out for him. I'll notify him to the admins, he's got an history of problematic edits. Also, the idea of a link to gray imports is very adquate. I'll start the changes now. Dread Specter 16:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I apologise for misleading edits. I thought that I was actually reverting vandalism done by others believe it or not. Consider the matter closed. Also, somebody has removed the membership fee post as discussed and agreed with in an earlier post on here...... P.S Who says I'm affiliated with either? Banalt 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In that case I apologise. I replaced the fee, not sure when that disappeared. RB30DE 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough mate, my fault really for not discussing on here before I changed it. All's well that ends well! Banalt 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oh great, you guys came to be friends again, lol. Thanks banalt for resolving everything peacefully, I must admit I too thought you were doing "crooked" edits. Please confirm to me that you're not spamming the link to your own website thus, as I had added a warning on your talk page on that topic. Also, what do you guys think of the transition I made to gray imports ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dread Specter (talk • contribs) 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

• Gray Import section seems fine to me. I'm not the best person to ask though as I don't get involved with the importation side, I usually buy my imports as the second owner to save the headache of SVA etc. With the links, they did end up going to the other website but as you can see the URL's are ambiguous at best. As I said, poor editing on my part sorry. Banalt 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New link warring?

Again:

http://www.skyline-owners-club.com/

http://www.skylineowners.com/forum/

Insertions, deletions, comments about the other. Thought we'd established one charges a fee. Can they not both co-exist? RB30DE 03:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They did happily for a while as I discussed with you. Turns out that the top one 'Club' (The one that charges) is a limited company, registered with Companies House in the UK. I thought it was against Wikipedia policy to promote this kind of stuff?Banalt 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot to add, they don't actually offer extensive tech advice or anything of value to people unless they pay, I just strongly disagree with this kind of aggressive company marketing. Banalt 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The aggressive promotion of this site is much more significant that the fact that they are commercial. A non-commercial site being promoted this way would be just as much of a problem. Anyway, "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services," "links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content," and "links to ... discussion forums ..." are all listed as links normally to be avoided.~ Dusk Knight 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That site doesn't belong in here as per the discussion we had before about external links. I re-added Skylines Australia website back on the list thus, it was pointed out to me by fellow Skyline owners that this forum has very pertinent information regrading the Skyline which cannot be found anywhere else and isn't region specific either. Anybody who doesn't agree, discussion's open. by the way, 81.159.163.45 has received a level 3 warning for spamming skyline owners club website. This kind of childish behavior is not acceptable I find, so please be on the lookout for anyone who engages in this stupid act of spamming websites and do not hesitate to warn them/report them. This is probably the article that requires the most cleaning in wikipedia and this spamming just makes the task more tedious, which it is already enough.Dread Specter 22:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought anyone could read the club that's being spammed, but upon checking what Banalt said yeah, technical section is only for members, so I guess that makes the difference "links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content," - the other two clubs currently listed also charge money for membership, but forum content is freely available. Personally I don't care if they are all deleted, brought it up because edit history getting clogged up with it, yeah tedious. RB30DE 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's getting tedious, it died down for sooo long as well. The reason why I keep replacing the www.skylineowners.com link is on the same grounds as the Aussie website; Viewable by anyone, including the self help section which makes the difference in my opinion. The whole page needs attention though. Banalt 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at this site, it contains no useful information for the purpose of this article. And it obviously would benefit from the traffic generated by the wikipedia entry as it is sponsored and a lot of visibility is given to them, so it looks more like a commercial site than a general forum in my book .I fail to see what "self help section" you're talking about banalt, and it's either non-existent or there isn't any emphasis put on it. No matter what, it is a typical forum about skylines, typical as those we're trying to avoid. I say it shouldn't be included. Anyone else agree, please remove the link once and for all.Dread Specter 20:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you're saying but you're not making it very clear. It looks like one rule for one, and one for the other (which I'm sure it's not!). You seem to allow Skylines Australia just because it's well known?!?!? The self help section is under 'FAQ's' which is where the guides are, and require no registration to view. Yes the site has sponsors, but from what I understand it doesn't even cover server fees and has no intention of profiting. I can understand why profit making sites are considered against the spirit of Wikipedia, but you seem to take the inclusion of this particular site very personally yet are quite happy to allow SAU and GTROC to be there?!?!? Banalt 06:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me, not sure what makes SAU more worthy than the others (and I'm registered on SAU). RB30DE 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you guys don't agree with my opinion, but I think this website is totally useless. Nothing more. I just find it's useless and it seems every newbies on wikipedia all contribute to using this website for waging their little war. I don't think I make it personal, I think it's you Banalt who's taking it personally with this website. I don't care about it, I'm just looking for the easiest way out with the spam, and taking it off seems to be the simplest and most logic way. I don't care if it stays, but like I said, I think this website is totally useless and adding it will only contribute to other adding more and more non-notorious websites which aren't deemed EXCEPTIONAL. It's not bad, it's just not exceptional, and a little FAQ, in my book, doesn't make a website exceptional and worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia. A website like SAU is recognized internationally as being a reference. I don't care whether it is added or not, but I think having it included is debatable, while Skyline owners' inclusion in the external links section is, in my humble opinion, as importantly debatable as the inclusion of Nismo Siberia club to the list. I hang out on a lot of different websites related to Nissans and I've never seen anyone refer a member to skyline owners, while SAU is regularly referred to when technical or other types of difficult questions arise. And since were trying to cut down on the amount of websites that are added, I think the external links policy should be as clear cut as a razor cut. Only the most notable and notorious websites will be included, the rest, no. So that way, the whole debate about "oh, but nismo Siberia club has a very good faq about antifreeze used on skyline when they start at -50 degrees Celsius" becomes unnessesary and it make sthe task of removing those external links much easier.

And yes, my opinion is very simple. Sorry if it troubled you guys.Dread Specter 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

V36 SKYLINE ISSUES

please do not delete the info about the V36 nissan skyline.

the car does have a 3.5L V6 with 315hp please do not remove

V36 SKYLINE In the timeline

why is this being deleted with the info on the v35 skyline for?

GT-R

The first GT-R Skyline appeared in February 1969. Called the PGC-10 internally, it used the 2.0 L <-- change the PGC 10 to KGC 10

Most overrated car in the history of automobiles CJW 70.26.11.45 00:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

who here actualy owns a skyline?User:spinnanz

I'm sure there are a lot, but GT-R? I highly doubt. 1698

I have an r33 gts25t, drove an r32 GTR a workmate owns, made my car feel so slow :( I'll have to post some pics in the article of thr r32 gtr next to a standard r32 so the differences can be seen User:spinnanz

I have an R32 GTS-4 Skyline. User:SkylineObsession

I also drive a Skyline Dread Specter 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a bit on model names the factory gave to Skylines in reference to adverts, like Ken-Mary (C110), Newman(R30). There was one called Jade and Hakosuka(c10)

I rem the Paul Newman edition R30, I donk know of the diff between it and the normal R30's. User:spinnanz

GT-R Turbos Stock & N1

I see there's a bit of changing going on with regard to GT-R turbos. I think that what is in the article now is not correct, but I'm not going to change it now. Specifically, according to my information, the R34 N1 turbo supports higher power than the R33 N1 turbo. Here's the information I have, if you have more information or different information, please contribute:

Stock Turbo

• R32 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.42 Turbine A/R 0.48 Ceramic Turbine, Sleeve Bearing
• R33 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.42 Turbine A/R 0.48 Ceramic Turbine, Ball(?) Bearing
• R34 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.53 Turbine A/R 0.48 Steel Turbine, Ball Bearing

N1 Turbo

• R32 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.42 Turbine A/R 0.64 Steel Turbine, Sleeve Bearing
• R33 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.42 Turbine A/R 0.64 Steel Turbine, Sleeve Bearing
• R34 GT-R - Compressor A/R 0.53 Turbine A/R 0.64 Steel Turbine, Ball Bearing

All the compressor & turbine housings are identical externally (including size), apart from A/R markings. The difference are in the internal machining, the shape of the wheels, and the core. The standard R32 & R33 turbos have slightly different compressor characteristics, even though the A/R is the same. The N1 R32 & R33 turbos are identical, no changes made between models.

To further confuse thing, Nissan/Garrett produced another lot of turbos for Group A. I've got conflicting information about that. 210.0.100.153 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Most overrated car ever?

Most overrated car in the history of automobiles. Perhaps a tie with the Toyota Supra CJ DUB 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do u have nothing better to do than pop ur POV all over the talk page? Put down some facts if u have something to say. --Preveen 13:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The cars not overrated, it's just one of the best ever produced. - Ben

LOL. Sounds like POV to me ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Best ever produced? Man you guys really believe that don't you? CJ DUB 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those opinions don't belong here. Keep them for yourself if they don't contribute to wikipedia. Thanks.Dread Specter 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why it can be abit of an overrated car. A lot of "ricer" fans see it as the ultimate and get a lot of kids prasing it in video games. And yes it is one of the best cars ever produced at an affordable price with similar performance to Euro sports cars - Ajax 11:54AM 4th April 07 (GTM)

Seems some people need to be reminded that this is not a forum, and only the discussions on improving the article are allowed and wanted. Thanks.Dread Specter

So Dread Specter, how would you "Clarify" this "Overratedness" of the Skyline? I see you have said you drive 1 yourself as do I and so if what I am saying is irrelevent then why is there a section on this and should it be deleted?- Ajax 5th April 07 (GTM)

It should not be deleted because no consensus has been reached on deleting this yet, and for the moment, this page serves as a reminder to those who would be tempted to open the subject again. To understand why your comments are irrelevent, please consult the talk page guidlines.I've left you the template on your page so you can understand better.Dread Specter 02:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

UK SALES FIGURES

Only 80 r34 were imported in uk from T to 53 plate

What has the number of how many cars were imported somwhere got to do with how good they are? if thet were the case the mazda MX5 is the best sports car in the world.

Question for the experts? Were there any Nissan Skylines(year or model) that were ever illegal in the US, if so what years and models? Please e-mail results to: silentkhaos9@earthlink.net or send to my wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silentkhaos9 or just post them up here on this Nissan Skyline wikipedia page, any are fine. Need to know for a school paper (Need info. as soon as possible, Paper due: May 2006) plus for my own knowledge. Thank you!

One of the fastest all-around cars in the world

"In 1999, a revised chassis and incremental updates to the GT-R model proved once and for all that the R34 was one of the fastest all-around cars in the world. It has held many track records and won many JGTC championships."

Im aware that the Skyline GTR's are fast cars, but saying its "One of the fastest all-round cars in the world" is a bit questionable. Fast, yes, but what about the likes of the Porsche 911? Also, a JGTC Skyline is extremely different from a road going Skyline. In America, if Ford said that the Ford Fusion could reach speeds over 180mph, they'd be lying. So the same should apply here.

Porsche 911 is a comparable car in performance. For example watch Best Motoring International Vol 2., Vol 3., unmodified 911s & 966s race unmodified GT-Rs amongst others. The sentence was "one of the fastest" not "the fastest" and it is. JGTC cars are restricted in output, some of the special edition Skylines are more powerful. 210.0.100.153 12:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHA. No it's not. Skylines are overrated. Stock, showroom Porsche 911s are by leaps and bound superior performers to stock and BUYABLE Skylines (i.e. no one off or Z-tune nonsense). CJ DUB 02:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I enjoy the futility of arguing about cars on the internet. The Nurburgring production lap record was set by all the R32-34 GTRs upon their debut. The superior Porsche 911s could not match the GTRs speed, even with more horsepower to draw upon. It was a Porsche 966 that finally beat the R34 record. 210.0.100.153 06:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you all want to keep going? Or stop like you should? This is a talk page that contains article related discussion. This has obviously degraded into something else.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nordschleife is one of the measures of a sports car. Several times in recent history, a GT-R has been the fastest production car on the Ring. This (or other concrete measures) would qualify the statement. Otherwise perhaps it should be removed? 210.0.100.153 09:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop living in the past. The Skyline has rested on its laurels; the lap times you speak of were surpassed YEARS ago. Have a look here: 1. You can see that the best Skyline record was rapidly eclipsed by a Porsche 993 and a few years later by the Corvette C5/Z06, not the new one. CJ DUB 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

CJ doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, nor should he talk shit about cars he could never afford

Hey man, I'm just citing a page that lists about 15-20 automotive authorities that have tested cars on the Ring. I think they kinda know more than you. The Skyline records were surpassed soon after they were made. Since then there have been MUCH faster cars on the ringCJ DUB 14:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking to facts and not opinions everyone... and please respect the "no personnal attacks" policy, even if you don't agree with someone, and rather remind that user to stick to useful content to wikipedia. Let's remember this is not a forum...

Thanks. Dread Specter 03:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The future in the United States = Press release

I dunno about you, but this looks to me like a copy/paste of a press release, which is a violation of Wikipedia rules? --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think (and its only I THINK until I find it) this was an entry in an auto blog or summin. The facts are right, but I agree that its PROBABLY a copy and paste. I'll look for the source article. And If I find it, I'll see about editing the section. --Preveen 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

HR31 Skylines

I've edited the information regarding the R31 series skylines, in particular the redtop RB20DET motors. It seems many people don't know that there exists 3 distinctly different redtop RB20 variants;

-the early "NICS" motors which are identifiable by a NICS plate on the top of the intake, and the use of twelve small intake runners from the plenum to the cylinder head, leading to a butterfly plate which reduces effective port size at low revs for better response (basically closes off 6 runners). Tentatively I'd say these were 1986-late 1987 production.

-the later "ECCS" motors which adopt the ECCS system, as well as a new manifold with six much larger runners instead of 12 small ones, but still retains the butterfly plate. The turbocharger is slightly better than the NICS item, and the electronics slightly more sophisticated. My best guess is that the ECCS motors were from late 1987/early 1988 until production ended, my personal car, a 1988 HR31 GTS coupe, has the ECCS motor.

- RB20DET-R "ECCS" with a large T04(?) sized turbo on a stainless steel tube manifold, and a large front mounted intercooler. This motor was fitted to the limited Group A homologation production of the HR31 GTS-R, and made 210ps. It may or may not have different camshafts and other internal differences. It is possibly identifiable by the "RB20DET-R" intake manifold badge.

Please note the HR31 ECCS motor and the HCR32 ECCS motors are NOT the same, the block, head, intake manifolds, turbos, electronics and many other components are completely different.

seventhskyline@gmail.com

220.253.133.29 13:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I had been wondering about that. The old ECCS thing is funny, it's a JECS board, which was a joint Nissan/Bosch venture. Was NICS a Nissan only effort? I found it strange that I used to have ECCS on a 1984 L20ET, and yet there were RBs later than that running on something else. It'd be nice to know the history behind the engine control. 210.0.100.153 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

GT-R Engine Confirmed?

GT-R Engine VQ36DETT

According to this, it is a 3.6L twin turbo. This front is quite different again from the Tokyo Auto Salon prototype, has some family resemblance to the BNR34 to my eyes. Still waiting for some different sources. Anyone else seen anything?

Also it's got a big Skyline badge between the signature afterburners. So perhaps it will be a Skyline after all? RB30DE 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe I have seen those shots before, and I wouldn't be so quick to consider it accurate. Show an announcement from nissan stating such, or confirmations independent of this site and it would be worth noting. If it goes in the article for now be sure to note the fact that it is as of this moment simply as claim made by an independent web site.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1952? 1955? 1957? Which is it?

Right now we have three conflicting years for the introduction of the Skyline. The model history says '52, the sidebar says '57 and '55. Can anyone shed some light into this? Bal00 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for 1955 so added that, in the absence of anything else. RB30DE 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Found [Nissan] themselves saying 1957 so changed it to that. RB30DE 07:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

DR30 Specs

Just wanted to point out that to the contrary, the DR30 in RS-X spec was available factory-intercooled. the lesser RS spec was not. However both versions did not use a blow-off-valve.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.38.209 (talk • contribs)

Attesa

Did the Skylines come out with the ATTESA system? Don't confuse this with the ATTESA E-TS system... I haven't looked through the article for Viscous yet however this showed up in search. I think Viscous diffs are used in ATTESA and electronically controlled ones used in ATTESA E-TS. --203.118.135.21 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (NzHamstar)

Also how come all the photos are from New Zealand lol... --203.118.135.21 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (NzHamstar)

becuause no one else posts up pictures and theres heaps of then in NZ, I work with 70 other people at my work and between us there is 2 r32 gts coups, 1 r32 gts25 sedan, 1 r32 GTR, 1 r33 gts25 coupe and 1 r33 gts25t seadn. Re the Q above, 4wd skylines use the attesa ETS system. User:spinnanz

Move engine & GT-R information?

This article is reasonably long now, and contains a fair bit of detail about the RB engines and the GT-Rs. How about moving some of the detail to Nissan RB engine & Nissan Skyline GT-R? Also Nismo GT-R Z-Tune is a bit of orphan, how about merging that into Nissan Skyline GT-R? RB30DE 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the info that's specifically about the gtr should be moved to the specific page so the article can be lightened.Dread Specter 03:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

21/11/06 New Skyline released

GT Channel Auto News

Nissan Japan V36 Skyline (Japanese, needs Flash) RB30DE 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, added pictures onto the skyline timeline —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EDIT TYPER (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30T05:01:07.

No worries. I cocked up the first one, second hand, original Nissan Nissan Introduces All-New Skyline RB30DE 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Twice the page has been edited to remove V36 and replace it with G35. Yes it appears the car will be called an Infiniti G35 in the USA, but this page is about the Nissan Skyline, and it is called a V36. Refer to the Japanese Nissan site (Even just the URL). RB30DE 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New Images

Many of the images that have just appeared are from here: http://www.nissan.co.jp/MUSEUM/SKYLINE/

I'm looking at FUC and I'm still unclear about whether these qualify as fair use or not. RB30DE 20:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use, Publicity Photos, Copyright Issues - I think they're probably OK, so long as they are tagged, and so long as they are not used when a free alternative exists. On a side note, the smaller image size (the images recently grew then shrank) displays and renders a lot better on my monitor (1024x768 default font size) RB30DE 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

New infoboxes

I've updated all the generations and the entire page with the new Infobox style that is in use on Automobile articles. I have left in all of the extra options (for example: length, height, weight, etc.). So please feel free to fill in all of the information. Thanks. ren0^talk 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Not sure how Wikipedia handles plagiarism, but the Nissan Skyline article is near identical to this allexperts.com article: http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ni/nissan_skyline.htm

Looks like someone at allexperts.com cut and paste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.170.206.82 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

It's a (slightly outdated) mirror. RB30DE 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearances in media

Can someone point me to the guidelines that necessitated the removal of the Skyline's appearances in media? The IMCDb doesn't have half the information that was posted here before... ~ Dusk Knight 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the media appearances. Based on the De Lorean DMC-12 featured article, I'd say it's fine to include this type of information.~ Dusk Knight 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

...but I am very sure what those at WikiProject Automobiles will tell you, a big automatic no, if you got anything to say, go have a mention to them about this, but I won't be surprised if that is a no answer. For the time being I have purged this list. Willirennen 23:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

This section has been cleaned out Per WP:EL. If anyone feels a link removed belongs, please explain. At the surface they all appear to violate WP:EL as community links or spam and should not be reinserted without discussion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I beleive we should put a link back on to http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/forums.html, although not the all and end all of skylines the amount and quality of most information on the forum is a great resource to any owner or potential owner. membership is free.Davidnbyrne 05:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do bear in mind there is a rule against forums being placed on the ext link. On teh above link, please refer to section 4, number 11 as this is about forums. Willirennen 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the link is a link to a forum / fansite / community site and as a result is non acceptable under WP:EL, nor would it be acceptable as a reference in most cases. The only exception to this would be official recognition as a resource by either Nissan, or some recognized automotive bureau. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Different ATTESA driving computer in V-spec variants

I noticed that there was no mention of the most influential asset of the GT-R: the computer. It should be noted that several variants of the ATTESA ET-S active driving computer were produced by Nissan for the GT-R's active driving computer. It's no secret that there were incremental updates to the system with each new generation from BNR32 to BNR34, but V-spec packages received a slightly different version. For the BCNR33 and BNR34, ATTESA-ETS Pro was fitted to V-spec models. The primary differences between the ATTESA ET-S and ATTESA ET-S Pro were: increased (possibly doubled) polling rate of driving condition data to the central computer, adjustments to the active centre differential's behavior under conditions of slip (they were adjusted to allow greater levels of slip and responded more quickly for more aggressive driving), control of new front and rear torque converters to adjust for each individual wheel (this one is unconfirmed for the BCNR33 and BNR32 generations).

Not much is known about how ATTESA ET-S was configured for V-spec packages in the R32 generation because of very low production quantities of said V-spec, and the R32 generation used mechanical triggers to poll the computer, whereas the R33 and R34 generations introduced fully computerized monitoring. The revised ET-S Pro was introduced with the BCNR33 in 1995, so I don't know what changes to the system were made for the BNR32 V-spec and N1. Cheers, --Setsunakute (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)