Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey there,

I'm thinking about getting a R32 skyline and put my RB30 that's being built into it rather than keeping my 180sx, as i want more even weight ratios.

But i was looking at www.imports.motortraders.net after i read some where that 1989 to 1991 skylines are lighter than the other ones.

May 1989 to 1991

Weight 1260kg

August 1991 to 1992

Weight 1320kg

So i was thinking;

What did they do to make it heaver?

Is there a way to make the newer models lighter?

If not would it be better to get a later model skyline as it would have better weight distribution up front with the RB30 and RB25 gearbox in it?

Thanks,

Andrew.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/242524-r32-choices-and-weight/
Share on other sites

From what ive read, the series 2 r32 (1991-1993) had factory side intrusion bars installed into the doors.

Any series 1 r32 imported into australia, gets the bars fitted in during compliance, so in the end there is no weight differences.

The series 2 has different steering wheel design, different fabric, different colour dash fascia and different plastic interior (bumpy instead of smooth).

Plus other small little bits, but all these changes wouldnt affect greatly the overall weight of the car.

So side intrusion bars added 70kg?

im not sure what else could add weight to the car.

From my understanding, everything is pretty much exactly the same apart from some slight interior changes.

However perhaps someone would be able to shed some more information?

A mate of mine weight his skyline and its around 1250 and his is a 1990 so even when there imported here there still lighter than the newer models with the side intrusion bars.

So is it just the complete car that weights it because the way the chassis is made or is something added :S

Would it be better to go the older one then, as its lighter over the newer ones?

i have massive sub box and 2 amps = 60kg

full tank petrol waht = 60kg

2b25det and box + 100kg?

25 l of old oil going to dump = 25 kg?

my fat ass = 110 kg

gtr wing lol = 10 kgbut yeah how accurate is dump weigh bridges

and u have coolent and oil and fuel to add on to your dry weight

and i have 18's and gtt breaks got to be some more weight there

cooler etc?

No one knows why the new ones are heavier?

Or if some one has weighed there newer R32 to see if its true?

I don't mean to sound rude, but no one will be replying to this thread because it is completely useless! You're only talking about a matter of 60kg. I work for a manufacturer that updates each model constantly and has a face lift half way through a particular models run (new model every 7years so facelift usually after 4 years to improve the car and boost sales again). This is not a new concept and I'm struggling to understand why you cannot grasp it. A control unit can be superseeded up to 6 times in only one year. each time the supplier, casing, hardware, software (weight) can change with each item.

Your answer is simple but very long and boring = different composition of plastics, more sound deadening, different wiring looms, chassis strengthening down to the grade of metal used to make the car itself.

All these thing could easily make up 60kg.

Why do you care anyway? If you're going to put an RB30 in anyway, even a mildly warmed over example is going to pull a 32 along with ease. +there are many roads to travel to lighten a car if that is what you are concerned about.

(As said above) 48 + 62 = 110 and there is no way on earth that a silvia has a wieght distribution biased towards the rear! A S8 RX7 is one of the best weight distibuted cars to come from japan at 51/49%. why do you think all the serious time attack cars have the engine lowered and moved back towards the fire wall in a silvia? Let alone a skyline, which is heavily front weight biased due to cast blocks etc.

If you are trying to figure out which model to buy for your build than do some research on something a bit more poignant like which one will the RB30 slip into easier? With out ever looking into that myself, I would imagine a 1993 version that has or had an rb25de in it so all you need to do is swap the bottom end, fit the turbo gear and remap the standard ecu. Obviously it won't be that straight forward but it will go a long way to making things a lot easier.

Rant over :huh:

  • 3 years later...

i know this thread is f**ken old as, But if you (ellie) where not meaning to be rude then why the f**k talk down to the fella asking the question in the first place?, clearly he was curious and wanted some insight, just becuase you work in the field and "know it all" doesnt mean other people know and understand what happens and why. So to a person who doesnt know and wanted some insight be a lot f**king nicer you repugnant f**k!

i know this thread is f**ken old as, But if you (ellie) where not meaning to be rude then why the f**k talk down to the fella asking the question in the first place?, clearly he was curious and wanted some insight, just becuase you work in the field and "know it all" doesnt mean other people know and understand what happens and why. So to a person who doesnt know and wanted some insight be a lot f**king nicer you repugnant f**k!

And the user was last active:

Last Active Aug 14 2010

So the chance of you seeing the somewhat pointless post/bump/whatever... Are highly unlikely. No need to post that, and certainly no need to swear your knackers off either. It's long since dead, next time leave it that way.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...