Stock R33 Gts-t Coupe 0-100kph And 0-400m Time?

[ken21]

ok did a bit of research on the R33 GTS-T 0-100kph, 0-400m.

0-100kph in 6.2secs

0-400m in 14.4secs

for all you R33 GTS-T owners, what do u think? are those times true??

tell me what are your 0-100kph times.

cheers

[**JaR**]

wow you searched first? A+

and stock times, that sounds about right yes.

[r32line]

I was under the impression stock r32's were quicker than r33's due to the weight gain, as the extra torque of the rb25 was not enough to overcome the weight making it marginally slower 0-100km/h than an r32. An r32 gts-t will do 0-100km/h stock in 6.5 from what i have read (89 model) later model gained 40kg and was not as quick.

But maybe I am wrong...

I g-teched 6.57 first time with only a pod filter and a really shit cheap 3inch cat back (came with car - fitted in aus, previous owner) that did nothing but drone. Havent tried since installing 3" turbo back with high flowed cat, but it feels noticeably quicker...

Edited June 15, 2006 by r32line

[Modena]

I was under the impression stock r32's were quicker than r33's due to the weight gain, as the extra torque of the rb25 was not enough to overcome the weight making it marginally slower 0-100km/h than an r32. An r32 gts-t will do 0-100km/h stock in 6.5 from what i have read (89 model) later model gained 40kg and was not as quick.

But maybe I am wrong...

I g-teched 6.57 first time with only a pod filter and a really shit cheap 3inch cat back (came with car - fitted in aus, previous owner) that did nothing but drone. Havent tried since installing 3" turbo back with high flowed cat, but it feels noticeably quicker...

I heard different. R33 GTST is meant to be quicker than R32...

[Munna1]

Yes the R33 is quicker in stock form than the R32. best I have done with a r33 and a g-tech is 4.9 but the car is not at all stock

[Big Rizza]

I was under the impression stock r32's were quicker than r33's due to the weight gain, as the extra torque of the rb25 was not enough to overcome the weight making it marginally slower 0-100km/h than an r32. An r32 gts-t will do 0-100km/h stock in 6.5 from what i have read (89 model) later model gained 40kg and was not as quick.

But maybe I am wrong...

I g-teched 6.57 first time with only a pod filter and a really shit cheap 3inch cat back (came with car - fitted in aus, previous owner) that did nothing but drone. Havent tried since installing 3" turbo back with high flowed cat, but it feels noticeably quicker...

As an R32 owner, I would love to beleive that. But despite the weight gain of the R33, the power-to-weight is still a decent amount better than the R32. It is, in fact, dangerously close to that of a GTR!

R33 GTST 184kw / 1370kg = 7.4 kg / kw

R32 GTST 158kw / 1290kg = 8.2 kg / kw

R33 GTR 206kw / 1530kg = 7.2 kg / kw

Figures from http://english.auto.vl.ru/catalog/nissan/skyline/

Whilst power to weight isn't exactly a definitive measure of performance, it goes some way to showing that the weight gain is more than offset by RB25 power!

[r32line]

As an R32 owner, I would love to beleive that. But despite the weight gain of the R33, the power-to-weight is still a decent amount better than the R32. It is, in fact, dangerously close to that of a GTR!

R33 GTST 184kw / 1370kg = 7.4 kg / kw

R32 GTST 158kw / 1290kg = 8.2 kg / kw

R33 GTR 206kw / 1530kg = 7.2 kg / kw

Figures from http://english.auto.vl.ru/catalog/nissan/skyline/

Whilst power to weight isn't exactly a definitive measure of performance, it goes some way to showing that the weight gain is more than offset by RB25 power!

My mistake, as i said i wasnt quite sure, but as far as i know the r32 gtr (stock) is the fastest gtr released as the rb26dett changed little with each consecutive model, while the weight gain was a different story. An r32 GTR capable of 0-100km/h in 4.7sec and 0-400m in 13.0sec. Please tell me that is the fastest of the GTR's??? (assuming stock comparison ofcourse)

[siksII]

no way is a stock r33 gts-t that quick over the quarter mile. not 100% sure about 0-100 but i would say that they would do closer to 7 seconds.

[Big Rizza]

My mistake, as i said i wasnt quite sure, but as far as i know the r32 gtr (stock) is the fastest gtr released as the rb26dett changed little with each consecutive model, while the weight gain was a different story. An r32 GTR capable of 0-100km/h in 4.7sec and 0-400m in 13.0sec. Please tell me that is the fastest of the GTR's??? (assuming stock comparison ofcourse)

Pretty sure the fastest GTR out of the Nissan showroom floor would be the R34 N1. The stocker ran 0-100km/h in 4.4 and 0-400m in 12.6 in Wheels magazine.

As for the standard GTR models, HPI magazine ran the following times:

R32:

0-100km/h in 4.73s

0-400m in 13.02s

R33:

0-100km/h in 4.94s

0-400m in 13.19s

R34:

0-100km/h in 4.92

0-400m in 13.13

Back in the early '90's, Wheels were running mid-5's for 0-100km/h and mid-13's for 0-400m for the Australian delivered R32s, if I remember rightly.

As for the original question, HPI ran the following times for the GTS-T variants:

R32:

0-100km/h in 6.89

0-400m in 15.01

R33:

0-100km/h in 6.21

0-400m in 14.37

R34:

0-100km/h in 6.02

0-400m in 14.32

[WazR32GTSt]

as these cars are not new and stock, the stock figures mean nothing..

the cars are much slower initilaly than stock figures suggest due to the process of ageing. plus, stock figures are recorded at optimun conditions with race drives

and, most importantly, most (if not EVERY) skyline is modified (yes, your cat-back/air filter is a modification even if you call it stock). so the times you record are more of a reflection of how modified the car is.

Warren

Edited June 19, 2006 by WazR32GTSt

[r32line]

as these cars are not new and stock, the stock figures mean nothing..

the cars are much slower initilaly than stock figures suggest due to the process of ageing. plus, stock figures are recorded at optimun conditions with race drives

and, most importantly, most (if not EVERY) skyline is modified (yes, your cat-back/air filter is a modification even if you call it stock). so the times you record are more of a reflection of how modified the car is.

Warren

I understand what you are saying Warren, my only thought is that a comparison of stock cars acceleration gives you a clear indication of which car was quicker off the factory floor, and therefore which car when modified would benefit even more.

So if as stated above an r33 gts-t is about half a second quicker 0-100km/h than an r32, if both had turbo back exhaust and front mount, you would think the r33 would be the quicker of the two.

But each car is different and the times you record and rwkw your car produces is the most relevant performance figures...

Also with relation to the NI R34 GTR being the fastest, i was really only comparing apples with apples, being the stock run of the mill r32, r33 and r34 GTR's.. where the r32 is like i said the fastest 0-100.. Thanks for the figures though

[siksII]

As for the original question, HPI ran the following times for the GTS-T variants:

R32:

0-100km/h in 6.89

0-400m in 15.01

R33:

0-100km/h in 6.21

0-400m in 14.37

R34:

0-100km/h in 6.02

0-400m in 14.32

I would not take HPI figures as gospel. do you know if they used proper timing equipment? i have seen other magazines testing performance with G-tech meters, thats just stupid they shouldnt publish those figures....

[**JaR**]

who cares about stock times anyways. like ive said before, i challenge someone to find a dead stock, no modifications what so ever, R33 skyline in this country. it'd be pretty farkin hard. and even then, its not brand new, so therefore, off the showroom floor figures are irrelevant. so who cares.

[ken21]

the only modification i have in my R33 GTST 93' is an air pod (blitz air pod)

i haven't time the 0-100 yet.

i guess no one knows the stock 0-100 time?

anyways my friend has a 96' R33 GTST, he dragged race a Ford XR6 Turbo. said that he was head to head with it. but once he hit boost it was "laters" to the XR6 Turbo.

=]

[Modena]

the only modification i have in my R33 GTST 93' is an air pod (blitz air pod)

i haven't time the 0-100 yet.

i guess no one knows the stock 0-100 time?

anyways my friend has a 96' R33 GTST, he dragged race a Ford XR6 Turbo. said that he was head to head with it. but once he hit boost it was "laters" to the XR6 Turbo.

=]

If your mates R33 was stock then I smell BS.

[Smurf]

the only modification i have in my R33 GTST 93' is an air pod (blitz air pod)

i haven't time the 0-100 yet.

i guess no one knows the stock 0-100 time?

anyways my friend has a 96' R33 GTST, he dragged race a Ford XR6 Turbo. said that he was head to head with it. but once he hit boost it was "laters" to the XR6 Turbo.

=]

so who won exactly? if it was your friend, his car would have to be heavily modified or the ford towing a caravan (as they do).

my thoughts are mid 6's. why? they feel very similar (maybe a little faster) than the 2 s15 200sx's i've been in and on average I think their times have been aroun the 6.5 to 7 sec mark. That said they have very different power deliveries so i may be off the mark.

I think it's one of those cars that feels very sluggish until you apply a fair bit of throttle. in addition they can sound like they are trying when they are not.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Smurf

[WazR32GTSt]

"once he hit boost"

so when he hit 1psi at around 2000rpm n first gear it was all over?

and it didn't matter that the other car was also turbocharged?

i smell BS...

[r32line]

According to wheels and motor, an xr6 turbo should do 0-100km/h in about 6.1seconds, and for the new model the auto is pretty much the same.

But when the two cars raced you have to compare how both cars launched, how many ppl in each car...beating a car does not mean as many ppl think that your car is faster than every one of those cars... haha a friend used to own a prelude and went on preludesaustralia.com (yes there is such a thing) and would often tell me that ppl would have lists of cars they had supposedly beaten in their preludes, rex's etc, i found it quite entertaing

but at any rate a stockish r33 should be pretty even with an xr6turbo i would think

[Munna1]

I understand what you are saying Warren, my only thought is that a comparison of stock cars acceleration gives you a clear indication of which car was quicker off the factory floor, and therefore which car when modified would benefit even more.

Good point r32 line I hate it when people knock factory figures because they are a good indication of what the car is capable of as a base. If you have a stock car with the same spec tires ect as it was when stock, and the car is in good condition these figures can be repeated if you are a good enough driver.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Munna1

[WazR32GTSt]

how about this example...

a stock rb20 vs stock telstar tx5 turbo

I can tell you that in stock form the telstar, with its 2.2L engine makes the same amount of power

now, add an exhaust, FMIC, and 12psi boost to each of them

I can tell you that the rb20 will make so much more power that its not funny

And this is from experience. my mate bought a stock tx5 turbo at teh same time i bought my rb20 which was stock. We built the cars doing about the same amount of mods and the last time i raced him (at calder) i won by > 5 carlengths. I can tell you this was not initially the case.

So, in summary, my point is that stock figures are good up to a point, but do not directly correlate with a good base to generate further power from. it depends moreso on other factors.

Edited June 21, 2006 by WazR32GTSt