Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Having owned my 4dr GTT for more than 2 years...no way I'd trade with a manual 33 GTST...newer car, less problems...good mileage too...the tiptronic can be fun when u want it to be...

Having owned my R33 for 2.5years, and having travelled about 60k in that time, the only "problems" I had were the coilpacks going. I've been very lucky in that respect, and if I had to do it again, I'd do the same.

Mind you, I take very good care of it in terms of regular servicing and the quality of fluids that go into it. The few mods I've done were carefuly chosen to maximise efficiency of the stock ECU without boosting the car.

touch wood >_<

n15m0 did you buy your car coz you needed the room? kids? etc?

or for a different reason?

yes, was planning to have a kid then, and needed a reliable quick car for work...the perfect family performance sedan! ....baby seat now resides in the back seat...>_<

I guess it depends on what you're going to use the car for, but if someone where to give me ones of those cars at my choice, I would probably go for the 4 door 34 because I want to be able to put children in there when I have some. The manual 33 would be more fun, but once you have kids, you're going to need a new family car.

Cant you get a manual gtt? Because for me, that would be the logical solution.

Either way, still the gtt, its a newer car, with newer stuff in it. That and its a sedan, and looks MILES better.

If it was 666dan's tiptronic r34 I'd choose that, such a nice car.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/t1...l&hl=666dan

"edit" just read the sedan bit, yeah I'd go the 33 unless you were planning on having children some time soon.

Edited by BAMR33

pretty 50 50 ere...

nowhere close to having any kids so get that out of the way lol

not looking at manual gtt's coz they cost a decent amount more than the auto/tiptronics..

from what i can see on car sites, the 2 cars in subject cost around the same amount

wouldn't mind the sedan 34 coz its different, looks pimp once modded, newer, easier to get in the back etc etc

wouldn't mind the r33 coz i've always liked em, like the body shape and its manual.

car will be used as daily, will slowly mod it cosmetically and performance wise and it will get driven alot. none of that "weekender" crap

decisions decisions....

Edited by R-SPEC

was in that position at the beginning of the year.

full stock 1998 r34 GTT tiptronic (2 dr coupe)

or

s2 1997 r33 GTST manual with mild mods (2 dr coupe aswell)

with very similar prices too

after driving both, the r33 s2 is what i ended up with, kinda felt disabled driving auto/tiptronic lol...im gonna get flamed haha

Edited by ztuned

R33.

I currently own two cars, both auto and this is after owning 20+ manual ones - and I'd never own another auto again. The gearbox difference makes the decision a simple one. (and that's taking into account my favourite Skyline IS an R34 4 door).

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...