Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All in all not starting a debate here, what do you mean the R32 is a more aggreseive preformer?

Whats the quicker car? I thought the R33 was. What are their stock Power Figures?

i think the means the way the power comes on

R32, looks better, isnt a barge, lighter, not as many around, felt nicer to drive and i drove 33s, 180s...

drive the both and then decide, thats what made my decision

Dont listen to Ed

He is drunk and his judgement cant be trusted :laugh:

I don't know how you determined that the ugly poos aren't as common. They sure as hell are common on george street on a sat ngiht. Anyone with 10k can pick up an ugly poo.

Even if they are less common, that's just because half of the ugly poos (32) with their vl looking exterior and vn looking interior (do your headlight and wiper knobs look familiar) have broken down or been written off.

The old vw beetles aren't very common. does that make it a good car :D

Oh ok, so the ugly poo drove better? not half of the ones that i've driven with their busted arse old suspensions and worn bushes (most of the old ones need work done).

Why exactly do you hate r32's so much? Im not a big fan of 33's but I respect all skylines and still appreciate the car for what it is. I chose an r32 because i prefered it NOT because i couldnt afford a 33, i didnt want a 33.... but whatever ppl that write things like you do dont listen to other ppl that disagree.

I don't hate r32s at all. I am a fan of all skylines. It just so happens that I have both an r33 and an r32.

It's just that r32 drivers always seem to love knocking r33s calling them boats, barges etc, so I merely respond.

I never start calling r32s bad stuff, I merely respond.

performance wise an r33 is quicker. it has more power and only weighs a touch more, and its easier to get power out of a rb25.

r32 weighs about 1320kg with 158kw, thats 120kw/ton.

r33 weighs about 1370kg with 184kw, thats 134kw/ton.

i prefer the interior of the r33. its more modern looking. the exterior of them i think they can both look good, and they can both look bad.

i think the means the way the power comes on

yeah pretty much, between the 2 cars i had/ have the 32 would be quicker and more lively upto 100klm but then the 33 would nose in front after that

oh and mad082: thats on paper, its a very different story when you drive them both... try getting their gear ratio's and final drive and add that into the equation :woot: , and the lil rb has a higher redline :wave:

what revs does an rb20 hit full boost by? my 33 hits it by under 3000rpm. i have been in a few 32s and none have gone as well as 33's i have been in. they have all had the same mods, just cooler, exhaust, pod and a boost increase. they are just too laggy. r33's don't seem that fast by seat of the pants in the drivers seat because they pull from such a low rpm. silvias and r32s come in higher so it feels like they pull harder, but it is just because they pull less down low. but if you keep both up in the rev range the r33 feels better.

I never start calling r32s bad stuff, I merely respond.
I don't know how you determined that the ugly poos aren't as common. They sure as hell are common on george street on a sat ngiht. Anyone with 10k can pick up an ugly poo.

Even if they are less common, that's just because half of the ugly poos (32) with their vl looking exterior and vn looking interior (do your headlight and wiper knobs look familiar) have broken down or been written off.

Hrmmm, im confused :thumbsup:

Edited by r32line
what revs does an rb20 hit full boost by? my 33 hits it by under 3000rpm. i have been in a few 32s and none have gone as well as 33's i have been in. they have all had the same mods, just cooler, exhaust, pod and a boost increase. they are just too laggy. r33's don't seem that fast by seat of the pants in the drivers seat because they pull from such a low rpm. silvias and r32s come in higher so it feels like they pull harder, but it is just because they pull less down low. but if you keep both up in the rev range the r33 feels better.

my 33 hits +boost by 2200rpm-ish the 32 i am talking about hit positive boost around 2500rpm-ish, they were both stock except 3in cat back, once modified the rb25 shits all over the 20 with out a doubt . dont forget that the 25 runs 7psi stock and the 32 runs 10psi.... but the 33 turbo flows better :thumbsup:

R32's (and R32 engined R31's) have all gone pretty well, love the way they rev, its peaky, but you do suffer at lower revs.

whereas a stock engined R33 comes onto boost so quickly you hardly notice it, full boost under 3000, its extremely linear.. but it doesnt rev as high.

modified, the 25 will really start to show its colors.

so, go for the best of both worlds;

an R32 with an RB25? :)

33 kills the 32 in stock form. All though modified i'd love an r32 track/drift with rb25, huge turbo, roll-cage, minimal interior and extra weight removed but that's not quite stock.

"Kills" ..... I think that might be a bit of an exageration... no question the 33 stock is faster than the 32 stock but i wouldnt agree with the word "kills"

The R32 is more of a driver's car, the 33 is more of a cruisy car.

Drive both and think about which kind of car you'd prefer more! The 32's steering/handling gives more feedback and is slightly better, personally i prefered the smaller and tighter interior, it seemed to involve you more than the r33's does. The 33 has a better motor n faster in a straight line, is a newer car and also isn't far behind the 32 round the twisties.

Looks wise R32 > R33

Engine wise Rb25 > Rb20

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...