Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sin- said:

http://gtr-registry.com/en-r33-colours.php

With links to all VIN with production information.

gtr-registry?? as if that's as accurate as wikipedia :4_joy::4_joy:

thanks for the link though, i thought there were only GTR details on that site. good to know!

5 hours ago, Robocop2310 said:

Look at all the menacing, stylish and beautiful R33 GTRs. How can anyone say they're not the best looking GTR.

 

The front looks amazing. The rear looks too much like our late 90’s Chevy impalas which is why I don’t like it

1 hour ago, SeanR32GtSt said:

The front looks amazing. The rear looks too much like our late 90’s Chevy impalas which is why I don’t like it

You know what’s funny, in terms of the front I think it’s a close tie between the R34 & R33 GTRs for looks but the rear the R33 & R32 GTRs takes the cake as the rear of the R34 is just hideous in all aspects. 

Robocop, love the video mate we are the true R33 GTR enthusiasts on this forum. They are a showstopper and in years to come when R33 GTR values are through the roof and USA"ers are fighting tooth and nail for the true race bred king (33R) people can look back and say "they were right".

Obviously, the cars clearly at the top of the food chain in the Top 5 are the 33 GTR, NSX, FD3S S8 RX-7, Supra and the Nissan S15 Silvia (Paul walker has been interviewed saying this is his favourite car - amazing comment given all the supercars he has driven). I can also vouch for the S15 being a f**king thoroughbred hence why Im in the process of a full house build to unleash its GT potential, the handling is pure and it is the true definition of an all-round RWD road & track warrior.

\THREAD

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, BakemonoRicer said:

Robocop, love the video mate we are the true R33 GTR enthusiasts on this forum. They are a showstopper and in years to come when R33 GTR values are through the roof and USA"ers are fighting tooth and nail for the true race bred king (33R) people can look back and say "they were right".

Obviously, the cars clearly at the top of the food chain in the Top 5 are the 33 GTR, NSX, FD3S S8 RX-7, Supra and the Nissan S15 Silvia (Paul walker has been interviewed saying this is his favourite car - amazing comment given all the supercars he has driven). I can also vouch for the S15 being a f**king thoroughbred hence why Im in the process of a full house build to unleash its GT potential, the handling is pure and it is the true definition of an all-round RWD road & track warrior.

\THREAD

 

 

 

I know this is stated the obvious...but I freaken totally agree with you...again...! LOL

As for RWD Nissans, I also love the s15 best. Lovely nimble shape and with proper mods and suspension, handles like a dream around corners and it doesn't get enough recognition in my opinion. I think you should definitely build it into a road and track weapon as s15's are way under powered from factory. 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Robocop2310 said:

LOL...

This is freaken stuff...has R33 GTR looks in my opinion:

Now I know you are on drugs.  Yes, it looks awesome*.  No, it has nothing R33 GTR about it.

*Awesome as in a 12 year old boy would stiffy up over it.  It is a very childish/hotwheels car sort of concept to smash a Corvette and S20 together.

7 hours ago, Robocop2310 said:

You know what’s funny, in terms of the front I think it’s a close tie between the R34 & R33 GTRs for looks but the rear the R33 & R32 GTRs takes the cake as the rear of the R34 is just hideous in all aspects. 

I can’t agree more. The 32 rear end is phenomenal. The 34 seems kinda over dramatic. Like the tail lights seem twice that of the 32

It's like a couple of kids discovering bro love and kool aid.

"True racebred king" = R32

The 33 and 34 are riding on its coat tails, IMO 

 

Keep up the good work, and......go

 

images (3).jpeg

  • Like 2

MLR, Please explain how the R32 is the racebred king when it's far SLOWER than the R33 & R34....

Not too mention a lot less rigid, I mean.... it's like trying to plough a chick with a semi-flacid schlong, where as the 33 and 34 would be like ploughing with viagra!!!!!!!!! I know what I'd rather!!!

 

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, SeanR32GtSt said:

I can’t agree more. The 32 rear end is phenomenal. The 34 seems kinda over dramatic. Like the tail lights seem twice that of the 32

Exactly. The R33’s rear is evidently the evolution of the R32’s.

  • Like 1

Robocop, I'm definitely with you on that one mate.

f**k, we are definitely on the same page.

And the Nissan engineers would of thought..... let's make the 33 ass-end phatter, badder and sexier....akin to a beautiful voluptuous latina woman with curves in all the right places.

  • Like 1
13 minutes ago, BakemonoRicer said:

MLR, Please explain how the R32 is the racebred king when it's far SLOWER than the R33 & R34....

Not too mention a lot less rigid, I mean.... it's like trying to plough a chick with a semi-flacid schlong, where as the 33 and 34 would be like ploughing with viagra!!!!!!!!! I know what I'd rather!!!

 

Because the 32 was the car that owned the mountain, the reporters called it "Godzilla" because it was a giant (V8) killer.

What has the 33 or 34 done that equates to that.

Why is a XY GT HO worth the money it gets, Bathurst  history.

I could name a heap of other cars with mototsport history that bring in the dollars, but I won't.

Yes the 33 and 34 are famous because of F&F, yes the yanks love that shit, but long term, IMO the cars are topping out, some, like that low Klm GTR may hold some value if they are stored, but, IMO from following the car scene and what brings in the dollars, the average 33 and 34 will take a fall.

People buying up average condition cars thinking they are an investment are, again, from watching the market over the last 20 odd years, dreaming.

As for how they look, they are all dated, but I like the 32 the best, that's my opinion, you like the 33, thats your opinion, some people only like the 34, some people, like me, think the 35 looks like the boss and walks over everything before it.

Am I wrong, is my opinion wrong?

From reading your previous replies, I would hazard to guess that you would tell me my opinion is wrong.

Anyways, it's always a pleasure reading your replies

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 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...