Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Good points, they look good, will be cheap to run, easy to drive and park and are FWD so pretty well idiot proof.

Bad points, some will say FWD having never driven an improved one, and those same people won't respect your choice of car.

I like them.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/134407-need-opinion/#findComment-2496942
Share on other sites

They look cool, and people who think fwd is slow are just bitter at having had their 3.8L commo or 4.0L ford handed to them by a 3.5L fwd magna...

and people who complain about understeer problems, well, from my experience, gtr/gts4 is pretty front heavy...

Perhaps you should find a candidate car, and post specs... here, or perhaps the magna forums (are there fto forums?)...

Overall, I like them... light, 3.0L mitsu engine has mods around... I'm pretty sure they have traction control...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/134407-need-opinion/#findComment-2497933
Share on other sites

The FTO doesn't have a 3.0L engine, it has a 2.0L engine.

From what I've heard its a pretty reasonable car. The '94 model got Japan's "Car of the Year" award, not bad considering its generally more "sensible" cars that pull that award.

The GP Version R is a credible competitor to the DC2 Integra Type-R. The LSD helps with power down, and its meant to be quite chuckable.

Otherwise, get the GPX. It runs the same engine as the GP Version R (its missing the bodykit, not sure about suspension tune or lightening) so it'll be as good as an Integra VTiR.

The GP's engine, while the same size and configuration (2.0L V6) doesn't have MIVEC so its down on power. In other words, not worth buying.

The INVECS-2 auto is meant to be one of the better Tiptronics out there as well, especially given its age, so its not a complete loss if you can't find a manual. But with such a peaky engine you'd want as many gears as closely packed as possible. :(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/134407-need-opinion/#findComment-2500960
Share on other sites

I have driven several...

I must say they are little nifty car and handles alright, some of them even have traction control. I think I test drove top model with all the fruits.

you make sure you get MIVEC and MANUAL one and you REALLY MAKE SURE it is MIVEC -some poeple just change few parks make them LOOK MIVEC.

they are very nice first car, at the end of the day you buy what you can afford and dont forget about INSURANCE cost!.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/134407-need-opinion/#findComment-2502331
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...