Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Its not unheard of. Case in point - The current Holden Barina is inferior to the model it replaces, as Holden have obviously decided a lower priced/lower quality car will better suit the marketplace.

This doesn't apply, as Holden sources these cars from other GM brands, it doesn't desgin and build them itself like Nissan Japan did with the Skyline. Holden decided to switch from the European "Opel Corsa", to the cheaper Korean "Daewoo Kalos", while keeping the Barina name. Nissan obviously didn't do this.

It was not a comparison, I was answering his question but I guess you missed that bit.

Maybe, but it doesn't relate to this argument though does it? So its not relevant.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3105623
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This doesn't apply, as Holden sources these cars from other GM brands, it doesn't desgin and build them itself like Nissan Japan did with the Skyline. Holden decided to switch from the European "Opel Corsa", to the cheaper Korean "Daewoo Kalos", while keeping the Barina name. Nissan obviously didn't do this.

Maybe, but it doesn't relate to this argument though does it? So its not relevant.

Seriouly, I BEG that you read before you post things like this.

Smurf said:

Why would a car manufacture release a new model that isnt superior to the previous model?

Holden, have "released" their "new model" barina and it is NOT superior to the "previous model"

He asked a question and I answered it.... And then you tell me it does not relate to the argument.... I WAS ANSWERING HIS QUESTION...... PLEASE FFS don't make me say it again! :rant:

I know that the new barina is sourced from Daewoo but it is still the car Holden have released as the NEW barina!

Edited by r32line
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107149
Share on other sites

in my opinion, a R33 puts power to the ground ALOT better than a tail happy, tyre frying R32 does. The R33 feels like a much more stable car and when lightly modified, is still a comfortable off boost daily driver. THe R32 is like a go kart, actually similar to a S13!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107229
Share on other sites

I just picked up my R33 gtst, and after been in mates cars not actually driving them i can notice a diff that the R33 is much smoother

in my opinion, a R33 puts power to the ground ALOT better than a tail happy, tyre frying R32 does. The R33 feels like a much more stable car and when lightly modified, is still a comfortable off boost daily driver. THe R32 is like a go kart, actually similar to a S13!

couldn't agree any better there about boost their like a normal car .. IMHO..

Edited by Yme33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107299
Share on other sites

Hahaha, i dont agree with that statement at all. You cannot apply rules like 16% more power but only 6% more weight means its faster... I know the R33 is quicker (in a straight line) but just because one cars power to weight ratio is better than another cars it does not mean that car is going to be faster. How a car puts its power down introduces countless other variables....Tyres, AWD vs RWD vs FWD, Traction control system, launch control.... I wont bother continuing

I did say 'simplistically'. As for how the cars get their power down, I thought we were comparing GTS-t with GTS25-t? Both RWD without traction control/launch control. Both have VERY similar rear suspension (geometry, spring rates etc). We were comparing stock for stock, but I doubt anyone has stock tyres anymore, so we'll just assume same tyres for both, both have same sized rims so that shouldn't be a problem. Both have R200 VLSDs, so they'd both get the power down the same way there. Both have very similar gearbox ratios too. The difference is the R32 has a ~5% shorter diff ratio (4.363 vs 4.083 from memory) which would increase acceleration compared to the R33. But R33 has more torque at the engine to start with, so it's negated, leaving the R33 faster.

I realise you can't use power to weight all the time, but these 2 cars are VERY similar, so in this case, you can and it does work. The R33 IS faster in a straight line.

Edited by salad
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3110390
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
LOL

put an RB25 into an R32 ;)

then you get the power in a much nicer looking car.

sorry just had to say it

But then this whole discussion would prove pointless :(

Coming from a Honda background.. people always go on about Hondas being gay because they are small,light and reasonably qucik. My ITR, was just on 1000kg. Has a tiny 1800cc NA motor and would do 13.8 @ 100mph all day.

Then you get the people in their bigger Turbo cars saying things like " Well if my ****** was that light it would be 10x qucker than that shit ass Honda..." Is it me or is it just them trying to make their penises look bigger? *shrugs*

Kinda went off track. :thumbsup: My bad.. continue :( (would like to add im am currently in the market for an R33.. so im not a Steriotypical Honda driver :excl: )

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3138583
Share on other sites

Why nissan even bothered to make a 6 cylinder 2 litre engine is beyond me. It just added unnecessary weight to the 32. They already had some brilliant 2 litre engines laying around and should have used one of them.

As for looks, Every time i see a 32 I look for a backward baseball cap in the near vicinity or in the car itself.

The 33 is far more classic coupe design and will be the most timeless of all of them in the long run including the 34. (guess which one I drive) :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3145039
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



  • Latest Posts

    • @Kapr Haha yeah thats the one. I missed that you had a built up engine, I wouldn't want to run it on there either then. It was good in my situation just to replace the original turbo on a stock engine. @MBS206Yep definitely not a replacement for anything name brand
    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
×
×
  • Create New...