Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

my opinion of the R32 is: R32 with RB25DET > *

you got the style, looks and power out of a small comfortable car.

even the RB20 with stock internals, decent turbo, cams, injectors and computer will set you up nicely.

on the other hand, my opinion of the R33:

r33_boat.jpg

that is all. ;)

that's the best looking boat i've ever seen...

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I know that if I were to have a daily I would definately want something with a decent interior so I would recommend an R33, possibly the Series II because they look much nicer on the outside than a stock series I. Just had mine tuned and pulled 270hp with pfc some more boost and basic mods and she goes quite well. 450km+ to a tank.

On the other hand if its great distances that you are travelling then 32 because they deserve to be run into the ground like a beat up VL haha

my opinion of the R32 is: R32 with RB25DET > *

you got the style, looks and power out of a small comfortable car.

even the RB20 with stock internals, decent turbo, cams, injectors and computer will set you up nicely.

on the other hand, my opinion of the R33:

r33_boat.jpg

that is all. ;)

faster in the water than r32's are on land

/stir

Hanging is too good for R33 owners....and so continues the downward trend of this thread ;)

But to the original poster, just shop around and look at both models. Sooner or later you will find an example that you tick most boxes and will like. It could be an R32, could be an R33. There is no point comparing stock ones as there are more modified ones out there then stock

exact same mods to a 32 and 33, and the 32 is slower? geee, reallly?????! derrr! dont hav to be a fregin scientist to firgure that one out.

evryone knows stock for stock the 33 is faster...and if u mod them in the same way ofcouse the 33 will be faster..

my 32gtst has only a few minor mods (exhaust,fmic,11psi,ecu remap) and it will get to 100 in mid 5's on crappy rear tyres...

so u may hav to mod the 32 a lil more...pfft, who cares, atleast ur in a car that looks better than the thousands of boat 33's drivin around...i see them every single day...ugly as hell itself.

they dont even get a second look, 33's just blend into the b/ground like commodores.

if u want sumthin special a nice clean 32 is the way ;)

my32_atAces_2_small.jpg

Can't believe the amount of morons ARGUING about the look of the 2 models...particularly you 32line

When will you get it through your thick heads that aesthetics are 100% opinion based and should not factor into a debate like this as its up to each individual as to which they prefer...

You can say R33's are ugly until your blue in the face, but no amount of dribbling can make that an indisputable fact.

As for everyone mentioning the weight of the R33 and how its such a 'boat', its always humerous to note that they never seem to mention that an R34 is heavier still.

Improved suspension, safety etc will all add to the weight...so while yo drive around in your 'super lightweight race car' the rest of us will drive around in our superior boats.

that was well said.. although i do agree on the interior.. my interior eats ass even thou its a GTR...

R33 = much better inside :thumbsup:

and another point.. 32line.. u want a special r32?? stop makin it look like something it aint.. its not a GTR. lose the wing, lose the front bar and skirts

want it special?? get something no1 has.

There is a few r32's out there now going for some pretty cheap prices too. Well under the 10k mark, and that's for turbo manual models.

Have owned both, with my first skyline being a series 2, r33. absolutely fantastic to drive, and literally nothing ever went wrong with it in the 1.5 years i owned it.

bought a r32 after that, and the differences are pretty noticable. the rb20det is pointless. the only way i could get the car to do sub 14 quarter miles is if i threw it off a cliff. the interior is a lot less comfortable, and a lot more noisy.

at the same time, the car handles ten times better, and i don't feel like i am about to plow into the country side when i take a sharp turn.

so now have put a rb25det into it, which makes the car fantastic to drive. noticably quicker than the r33, with the same ammount of mods. now i just gotta get some bigger brakes for it, as the r32 ones aren't up to scratch.

as for the interior and noise, i just drive with the music a bit louder :thumbsup: and will hopefully get some recaros by the end of the month.

that was well said.. although i do agree on the interior.. my interior eats ass even thou its a GTR...

R33 = much better inside :)

and another point.. 32line.. u want a special r32?? stop makin it look like something it aint.. its not a GTR. lose the wing, lose the front bar and skirts

want it special?? get something no1 has.

hahah, 32's look shit stock...33's look even worse. hence the gtr bits. btw...the skirts are the standard type M ones made for gtst :D

and dezz i am aware aesthetics are 100% opinion based, but i love to stir 33 owners in sh*t pointless threads like this one :D

32 FTW!

mwhahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I would compare RB25 to a similar capacity motor like RB26.

SR20, RB20 are more even, as they are in the same 2.0 litre class

and produce around the same peak hp (600-700hp) when modified.

Also look at what the RB20DET was competing against in the 80's

(Japan, Australia, UK).

That would be Honda Civic, Ford Cosworth, BMW M3, etc.

Edited by SKYPER
that was well said.. although i do agree on the interior.. my interior eats ass even thou its a GTR...

R33 = much better inside :)

and another point.. 32line.. u want a special r32?? stop makin it look like something it aint.. its not a GTR. lose the wing, lose the front bar and skirts

want it special?? get something no1 has.

The gtr kit is the best looking and most functional kit you can get for the 32 gtst. Not everyone with a gtr kit wants a gtr, get over it

ps hows the blown motor going haha gtr's FTL

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, 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...