Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

heyy how ya all doin?

now i was finking bout getting a 34 however some things have come up and im goin to need some cash so the 34 is out of the picture :whistling:

So i really want to know whether i should get a 32 gtst or a 33 gtst

which has better fuel consumption?

which has a better drive?

which is more reliable?

and so on..

Any info will be greatly appreciated cheers guys.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The 33's have a newer feel obviously but the r32's are smaller, lighter, handles better, has better fuel consumption and its chassis feels that little bit more performance orientated. The R33 is a nice balance between both but the R34 being the best feel of all where it some how feels like a family car then you hit the twisties and its predictable and sharp.

Stock for stock they are fairly close in performance until the R33 gets an ecu in to it then the R32 simply can't keep up.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056099
Share on other sites

i used to own a r32 now i've gone to r33, newer car etc, bit more roomy, bit extra power etc, feels better to drive for me personally.

although the r32 felt like you could throw it around a lot lol, fun can to drive and great handling as well!

i think you should test drive both, then decide yourself that's you best bet!

As for fuel consumption, turbo cars drink through fuel easy....depends how much boost your running/how heavy your right foot is!

i've found them both to be fairly reliable..

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056172
Share on other sites

incase you havent picked up on it yet..

R32 GTSt = RB20DET (2.0 litre engine)

R33 GTSt = RB25DET (2.5 litre engine)

there is a little top gear segment on buying skylines, its alright, doesnt give you the complete picture, but its a good place to start (you tube has it).

most people chose the R33 because of the engine differance, if it was me, R32 all the way as i prefer the chassis (just put a RB25 in it). But in the end cassis is a very personal thing its the engine thats the important bit.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056604
Share on other sites

incase you havent picked up on it yet..

R32 GTSt = RB20DET (2.0 litre engine)

R33 GTSt = RB25DET (2.5 litre engine)

there is a little top gear segment on buying skylines, its alright, doesnt give you the complete picture, but its a good place to start (you tube has it).

most people chose the R33 because of the engine differance, if it was me, R32 all the way as i prefer the chassis (just put a RB25 in it). But in the end cassis is a very personal thing its the engine thats the important bit.

can you link to the video

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056648
Share on other sites

32 is the only way to go if u want performance, an i think they have a bit btr interior as well

dont make me lol

you cant be serious??

as for performance my GTS4 will smash your GST4 any day mine with no serious mods just like yours

EDIT if you want real performance get a R32 GTR

Edited by Madaz
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056789
Share on other sites

dont make me lol

you cant be serious??

as for performance my GTS4 will smash your GST4 any day mine with no serious mods just like yours

EDIT if you want real performance get a R32 GTR

But your GTS4 is released from factory as an N/A GTS4

An Rb20DET running 1bar, fmic and exhaust pushes out around 170rwkw on the stock ecu.

Then consider the weight difference of the R33 GTS4 to the R32 GTS4 and I think you will find it is damn close. :)

If you want real performance grab a cheap 9-10k R32 GTS4 and drop a couple hundred $$ s/h running rb30 in it with an rb25 head, gt35r and push out 300+rwkw easily with strong power from 2500rpm. :)

Besides the point... By the time one speds the $$ on a gearbox and motor for the R32 GTST your out of pocket more than if you bought the R33 gtst. :) So buy R32 GTS4. :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3056846
Share on other sites

heyy how ya all doin?

now i was finking bout getting a 34 however some things have come up and im goin to need some cash so the 34 is out of the picture :blink:

So i really want to know whether i should get a 32 gtst or a 33 gtst

which has better fuel consumption?

which has a better drive?

which is more reliable?

and so on..

Any info will be greatly appreciated cheers guys.

But your GTS4 is released from factory as an N/A GTS4

An Rb20DET running 1bar, fmic and exhaust pushes out around 170rwkw on the stock ecu.

Then consider the weight difference of the R33 GTS4 to the R32 GTS4 and I think you will find it is damn close. :D

If you want real performance grab a cheap 9-10k R32 GTS4 and drop a couple hundred $$ s/h running rb30 in it with an rb25 head, gt35r and push out 300+rwkw easily with strong power from 2500rpm. :)

Besides the point... By the time one speds the $$ on a gearbox and motor for the R32 GTST your out of pocket more than if you bought the R33 gtst. :banana: So buy R32 GTS4. :P

maybe you miss understand the comparison hes clearly looking @ Turbo engines it really doesn't matter that mine came NA because the to afore mentioned cars are both GTS4 and turbo, it would of been the same as comparing R32 GTSt and R33 GTSt

you claim RB20DET with intercooler and 1bar makes you 170rwkw i claim RB25DET with intercooler and 1bar makes 200rwkw or so close too its neglegable

so really the choice must be a RB25DET engined vehicle or RB30/25DET

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/164943-r32-or-r33/#findComment-3058375
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

    • 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...