Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

correct me if I am wrong but a Dc2 Aus spec ran a 15.1 for the 400. Only the jap spec which made a little more power ran 14.9-15.0. Not too sure what an auto GTST will run the 400 in...Manuals run it in the mid to low 14's....Would be a close one that is if both are 100% stock

The DC2R would pwn it through the hills.

Yes I agree, One thing the Hondas got right was the whole handling and response package. Easily capable of annoying big dollar euro cars through a winding road

Yes I agree, One thing the Hondas got right was the whole handling and response package. Easily capable of annoying big dollar euro cars through a winding road

well the DC2 0 - 100 was recorded at 6.7sec

thats pretty awsome for a Non turbo 4cyl.......

the only problem with them is there is no feeling of torque watsoever...

the constant reving & the comparison of the noise its making per its velocity.......it feels like a worn clutch

And being front wheel drive isnt necessarily in their favour either, is it?

yes

apparently Front engine...Front wheel drive is actually more superior compared to the Front engine rear wheel drive in conditions with snow, mud, gravel and wet tarmac.

well the DC2 0 - 100 was recorded at 6.7sec

thats pretty awsome for a Non turbo 4cyl.......

the only problem with them is there is no feeling of torque watsoever...

the constant reving & the comparison of the noise its making per its velocity.......it feels like a worn clutch

Mmmm...That must be the jap spec times ( 147 kw as opposed to Aus spec 141 kw- Jap spec had better rubber too ) as I am pretty sure most testers in the day achieved 0-100 in 7 and a 400 mtrs in 15.1...But you are right,very respectable numbers for an NA 1.8 front wheel drive

And Gtr's are useless for traction in any of the above conditions too LOL!!!!

and so is the Bugatti VEYRON are also usless for traction in any of the above conditions too LOL!!!!

the Title was talking about an AUTO GTS-T and an Integra Type-R

Im for the r33 simply cos the combo of torque and an auto gearbox is full proof for drag racing while the teg would require careful rev and clutch control for a proper launch.

on another note, fabulous cars though! both of them

I'll depends on the driver, if the driver for the Type-R is skilled in launch & gear changes then Type-R probably tiny bit faster. But if you talking about average day people then auto GTS-T will probably own, as said above auto boxes are easy to do drags with & you get perfect shift everytime.

The gtst for sure, if 33 has a shift kit the gtst by a lot more. When i was running 8 psi and my mate was running 11 psi i used to beat him every time our cars had almost the same mods except i had a shift kitted auto and he had a manual (all tests were performed on private roads...).

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...