Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Anyone with 10k can pick up an ugly poo.

and they cant pick up an R33 with 10k?

look at importing brokers, u can import R33's for about what u can R32's, and they are older ffs. why? well i can only go on what i think, i wouldnt touch one in a million years, they dont look as nice (remember, my opinion) and stock for stock they are slower in a straight line and through corners (once again, from my experience) so um... why the f**k would i want one, because its newer? hell maybe i should go out and buy a new model falcon, they are new and they are getting down to the near 10k. ofcourse im not, cos i want a car that performs, if that means i have to buy a car that is a little bit older than so be it.

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and they cant pick up an R33 with 10k?

look at importing brokers, u can import R33's for about what u can R32's, and they are older ffs. why? well i can only go on what i think, i wouldnt touch one in a million years, they dont look as nice (remember, my opinion) and stock for stock they are slower in a straight line and through corners (once again, from my experience) so um... why the f**k would i want one, because its newer? hell maybe i should go out and buy a new model falcon, they are new and they are getting down to the near 10k. ofcourse im not, cos i want a car that performs, if that means i have to buy a car that is a little bit older than so be it.

Mate, you are a dead set tripper........

and giving information "on your experience" compared to facts. is retarded.

in my experience you dont pick up chicks that are 150 pounds and over when your smashed, wake up scream and go omg. then blame it on the alchohol. but, thats just in my experience.

lol look at the time i posted that, i dont think i was in a great frame of mind when i wrote that. but still i agree with it, from my experience the r33's ive been in feel slower stock for stock.

and FFS this site isnt a specs site, its about discussion and opinions, hence me expressing my opinion, i know they seem far-fetched to grasp but they are my thoughts, if u think they are wrong argue it properly instead of throwing childish insults like "retarded" etc.

the guy asked specifics...

and if "experience" is the case

in my "experience"... an R33 goes faster in a straight line and around corners than an R32

R33 power to curb weight is greater...

and blaming a retarded post on it being posted at 4am, is as retarded as posting it in the first place.

meh in the end all u have to do is look at the 2, R33 is bigger heavier but has better driveline, R32 is smaller and lighter but has worse driveline, stock for stock they are very similar performance but different, r32 is more agile whereas the r33 is bigger and has a bigger engine. its down to preference really.

when it comes down to it, are u prepared to pay another 3-10k ontop of an R32 (in australia) for an R33 which has arguably similar performance?

Edited by nisskid
meh in the end all u have to do is look at the 2, R33 is bigger heavier but has better driveline, R32 is smaller and lighter but has worse driveline, stock for stock they are very similar performance but different, r32 is more agile whereas the r33 is bigger and has a bigger engine. its down to preference really.

when it comes down to it, are u prepared to pay another 3-10k ontop of an R32 (in australia) for an R33 which has arguably similar performance?

do you even read whats being posted?

they are not siumilar in performance. lol

R33 is bigger and slightly heavier, hence more power stock... >_<

and obviously i am... considering i own an R33

meh in the end all u have to do is look at the 2, R33 is bigger heavier but has better driveline, R32 is smaller and lighter but has worse driveline, stock for stock they are very similar performance but different, r32 is more agile whereas the r33 is bigger and has a bigger engine. its down to preference really.

when it comes down to it, are u prepared to pay another 3-10k ontop of an R32 (in australia) for an R33 which has arguably similar performance?

I dont see why everyone "thinks" the r32 gtst is more agile than a r33 gts25t?? In my opinion (i have owned both) the r33 handles alot better than the r32 stock, the r32 felt very sloppy and soft which made it feel unstable on the road in a way, the r33 handles alot better, it is stiffer (one of the stiffest stock cars ive been in) and feels more chuckable than the r32 (alot of people will disagree with me on that statement but i am just expressing my opnion), it is alot more stable at higher speeds and you can throw it around corners and it will grip ,give it some gas and it will pull out of the corner really nice and smooth, its feels tight and safe.

In the straight line the r33 gts25t is the better car once again, (most of the quoted times i have seen are: r32 gtst 0-100 = 7 sec, 1/4mile = 15.00sec, r33 gts25t 0-100= 6.3 sec, 1/4mile = 14.30, but i guess in the real world it comes down to the driver and the condition of the car.

Just my 2c :)

R33 FTW >_<, i have nothing against r32's by the way, there both great cars.

Edited by nizmo_freek

I've driven a few different R33's in my time, from stock to mildy modified. I ended up buying an R32 because I prefer the looks and physical size to the R33. I like smaller cars.

Handling wise I couldn't say, the R33's handled well for their size (like the mk4 2jz supra I drove) but I disliked the physical size of both.

The handling in my 32 can't really be compared, mine came with coilovers and I haven't driven any with stock suspension. That said, I feel that the 32 is more of a drivers car and coming from a '86 911, just as fun but requiring a little more caution with the gas pedal because the motor is in the front :D

The only downside to the 32 IMO is the lack of lowdown torque.. hence an RB25 conversion is part of the longterm plan :laugh:

I dont see why everyone "thinks" the r32 gtst is more agile than a r33 gts25t?? In my opinion (i have owned both) the r33 handles alot better than the r32 stock, the r32 felt very sloppy and soft which made it feel unstable on the road in a way

Your r32 must have been a sh*t example because i have driven at least 3 r32's with stock and/or modified suspension and i would never describe it as "sloppy". And as above, the quoted time for an r32 gts-t is 6.5 seconds not 7...

Your r32 must have been a sh*t example because i have driven at least 3 r32's with stock and/or modified suspension and i would never describe it as "sloppy". And as above, the quoted time for an r32 gts-t is 6.5 seconds not 7...

I can assure you my old r32 was not a "shit example", it would have been one of the better example's in N.Z in my opinion, every other r32 out there on the market in n.z today is usually an old ruggered peice of trash, you very really find a good example of a r32 gtst in n.z anymore, my old car was a 1989 model and had 125xxxkms on the clock when i got it and it was in excellent condition!! so i would hardly call my old r32 a shit example.Have a look at the link in my signature and tell me if you think it was a shit example??

Have you ever driven a r33 gts25t?? when i said the r32 feels "sloppy and soft" i was comparing it to the r33, the r33 feels more sporty!! i wasnt trying to piss anyone off i was just expressing my opnion (thats what a forum is for after all isnt it??)

I also had a resonably well setup suspension setup in the r32, BC Coilovers, front and rear strut braces, nolathane upper arm bushes it did handle extremly well so no complaints there (the spring rates were a bit harsh for daily driving).

Im not bagging r32's, they are great cars!,i was simple having my say and expressing my opinion,as i said earlier the r32 and r33 are both great cars!

Edited by nizmo_freek

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

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...