Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well we all have our own opinions.

But you must admit, they are not professional opinions.

and are a product of the superficial knowledge we have.

Here's what BBC Topgear found comparing:

Porsche 911 GT3 v Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VI v BMW M5 v Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 V.Spec

Link located at:

http://www.geocities.com/nissanskyline_uk/...trevo7m5gt3.htm

The result is not in the least surprising.

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ali -can you provide an original link for that (ie: not a skyline enthusiast link)?

Jeremy Clarkson's (top gear) top 100 cars is a great vid. The GTR is in the top 10. But it's pipped by a porsche (GT2), and, indeed, the E-type jag, as the best car of all time.

Of course, like anything, 'we all have our own opinions'

no doubt Evo are better RACING car than gts-t, even gtr in someone's mind.

Evo is a car base on lancer, so no matter what, it's a lancer.

U do feel it is a CHEAP car in nomal drive, it's value shows when u drive it hard and throw it into a corner.

I do feel skyline is a more expensive/ luxury car when u drive it.

it has better balance between racing and daily drive.

who want to pay $75000 for a car which will be become PREVIOUS model in 1 or 2 years? not much...

i prefer skyline as i am a street driver, and i would like a evo on track day/ club racing / hill climb / rally ONLY.

Originally posted by MISGSR

Tell your mate to buy the 4, it will shit on the 33 GTS-T, I do and my car is still 1.8!

I 100% agree evo is better than a gts-t, but not a gsr...:bahaha:

the evo wasn't designed for just going in a straight line. what's the obsession of leaving a car for dead at the lights? true driver skill is involved in the launch, but i would say that the person with the most money will always win.

i would venture so far as to say that in a launch, the Evo will beat most gtst, i would think that a GTR would have its work cut out for it if it were to meet an Evo. true, there is the extra displacement blah blah blah, but power to weight ratio? stock for stock the Evo matches the GTR for power output. it's not too shabby in the torque department either.

asian tuners have been telling me for a very long time that it will be hard to match an Evo in a century sprint. above that will be GTR territory. true, you can spit out stats like the GTR does it in the 4 secs territory n the Evo is in the 5's. pls remember these times are clocked by pros. how many of you are genuinely able to match the pros?? with the 4wd, the Evo is definitely a friendlier car to launch, and i would venture to say that it would eat most rwds on the road.

Maxx, i think if you check around, it's not the Evo that is based on the lancer, rather it's the other way around.

and they dun share the same chasis and parts. so if you're using the lancer as comparison, it's the same as taking a normal impreza and saying it's the same as a wrx.

previous model doesn't mean lousy. Jun's Evo 5 is still around, after 3 generations, kicking arse. if previous is bad, why is the GTR32 still holding the 0-300km/h title? why is the GTR33 still holding the 1/4 mile record?

Yes, the Cedia is the base model, but the EVO7 has a thinner roof,

thinner front & rear glass, much more spot welding in the body & suspenion support areas, Aluminium wider guards& bonnet, different rear quarters, alloy suspension arms, different tail & headlights,grill, rear wing, totally different dash & interior, + all the obvious driveline differences.It is a very different car to the Cedia. Also, I do not believe that the EVO can launch as well as the GTR - just my opinion after doing it a number of times back to back with my cars.

As far as this EVO vs GTR argument goes - I would love to have a

Gemballa GTR EVO. It's a Porsche tuned by Gemballa Germany - has 880hp, 850Nm, & holds the current Nur/ring lap record for a street rego car.Fully sick. Interesting they called it a GTR EVO !!!!

A more 'normal' one is the GTR 600 which is based on the 996 Turbo - has 630hp. So if you want to add a GTR of a different kind to your collection checkout www.gemballa.com

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

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • 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?
×
×
  • Create New...