Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i wouldn't buy any GTR for 10K! most likely it'll leave you disappointed as you'll probably need to sink big dollars into it just to get it going properly! most guys i know who own R32's eventually put the R33 motor and gearbox into them anyway! if it was me, i'd go the R33, but i am biased. however you cant ignore the fact of the much better, stronger and more reliable motor and gearbox the R33 has compared to the R32. the R33 also has bigger brakes (same as R32 GTR) which also makes a big difference.

Who would that be Luke? :D

Nothing beats an R32 GTST with R33 running gear for super fun happy driving enjoyment - Lighter than an R33 GTST with the extra torque and power of the 2.5L engine and a MUCH stronger box and a better chassis (in my opinion) meaning better handling.

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Who would that be Luke? :blink:

Nothing beats an R32 GTST with R33 running gear for super fun happy driving enjoyment - Lighter than an R33 GTST with the extra torque and power of the 2.5L engine and a MUCH stronger box and a better chassis (in my opinion) meaning better handling.

also looks better and wont attract harpoons :P

^^^Ha........and all the things that add that weight are the very things R32 owners envy, bigger motor, better brakes, newer interior, extra leg room etc etc etc all add just a little bit of wieght but make a car not a billy cart!

No I think he wants an R32, he's into old cars............he wants one he can cut the rust out and restore!!!!

An r33 won't do it for him, too new and no rust.

rofl

How long can you wait to save an extra $3K for a stock R34 GT-T (circa 1998) like Andrew mentioned?

^^^Ha........and all the things that add that weight are the very things R32 owners envy, bigger motor, better brakes, newer interior, extra leg room etc etc etc all add just a little bit of wieght but make a car not a billy cart!

I'm not being a nit picker or anything :/

RB20's are stronger but older, also RB25's are lighter, gearbox is the same weight, and almost all 32 are type M's, so the calipers are the same weight. So the weight is in nothing we envy. Interior is newer but less huggy, you sit less in the car and more on it and what extra leg room, marginal in the back, but the front is the same

Quick Pro's and Cons

R32

+Chassis, Price, Weight, Smaller Size, Nimbleness, better suspension standard, Drivers Skyline, RB20 revability and strength, reliable if looked after well, boot space, sit in not on

-Age, lack of reliabilty if not looked after, RB20's lack of torque, High KM's,

Note 20 Gearbox aren't that weak, RB25 gearbox stronger though

R33

+Extra torque and Power, bigger car, more aftermarket support, Price, Newer

-Chassis, weight, Larger car, Need to spend more money on making them handle, Don't like to rev, Sit on not in, boot space

R34

+No bigger than 33, better Chassis than 33, newer, more refined, More power again (not buy much) looks, low KM's

-Price, Still heavy compared to 32, Still don't like to rev

25 boxs are actually 20kgs heavier. by the time you do the 25 conversion in the 32, you're not that far off a 33.

33s by the by also have better suspension geometry than the 32, same setup , just more refined.

31s are what you're after but... :/

I'm bored at work, so I'm gonna pick apart Reece's argument :/

The R32 gearbox is the same as the R31 box and yes, its not a weak box, but it is not strong either (I define a weak gearbox as the S15 6 speed). Give it some bad treatment and it wont last very long. The R33 gearbox is a big improvement over the old one and it will definately handle more punishment than its predecessor. Its what a lot of people use for moderately powered (400kw) RWD RB26 conversions. I read line that in an old HPI once, so there :D Another good argument for them is that mine is still going as strong as ever after all the skid pan and trackdays that i've done over the years! I'm surprised that you didn't mention the better diff that the R32 has....

You've listed price as a negative for the R34. I dont agree. For about $8000 you can get a fairly nice, stockish R32. For an R33 your looking at about $10,000 for a good one and for an R34 your looking at about $12,000 for a good stock one if you look around a bit. A difference of $4000 isn't that big of a gap for a much newer and better all round car. Saving money harder or for a little longer would be well worth it.

I reckon the R33 handles better than the R32 in stock form. I also reckon you dont need to spend more money on handling if you own an R33. For the same money you can get nearly the same parts for both models. Most coilovers are put into the same category by manufacturers, therefore making the price nearly the same. Also springs and shocks are pretty close too. If there is a difference in price, it wont be a big one. Of course feel free to correct me if I'm way off!

And the difference in weight isn't as big as everyone is making out to be. Its around the 150Kg mark give or take, which in terms of street cars isn't a huge difference. You wont notice it when driving around town. You might notice it at Wakefield Park after you've spent some money on the suspension along with good tyres and brakes. Even then, unless your doing 1.12's or less, you still wont notice a huge difference...

OK, moving away from there now, something else to think about with the R34 is the turbo. The R32 and R33 use a ceramic wheel turbo and can be boosted higher and more easily. The R34 uses a nylon wheel turbo which is much weaker than the others and can't be boosted without running into big problems. DriftGTS had an R34 turbo on his RB20 for a short while. He ran it at 10psi for about 4 weeks before completely destroying it! Yes he gave it a hard time, but it still would have happened sooner rather than later. I've been running 11psi on my standard R33 turbo for about 2 years now and its still going strong.

My 2 cents... Again! :) Yes I am bored...

now im going to pick on lukes a bit.

really only around 50kgs between the models, dont forget to add 20kgs for autos and 20kg+ for sedans

1992 R32 GTSt = 1320kg

1997 R33 GTS25t = 1370kg

2000 R34 GT-t = 1410kg

the34 turbo was going good for around a year at 11psi, only let go after snapping (and i mean snapping) 2nd with semi's. + i got it for a case of coke'a'cola as it was on its way out.

with the extra 30kw and 30nm between 32 and 33 (flywheel) and extra 100mm wheelbase you wouldn't notice the difference in weight, as luke said

why not a 32 gtr. might have a few kms on it so you better change the oil pump! but better then any gtst or gtt will every be! then you can save some money and build a monster...

I have to disagree with that... I have driven multiple GTR's and GTST's in the recent past and have found that you can have just as much fun (if not more) in an R32 GTS-T after spending far less money on it than if you were to get a GTR...

R32 GTR's are getting long in the tooth now and they have a lot more that can go wrong, meaning that there are more parts to replace when they wear out and they are more expensive when you do replace them.

Don't get me wrong, I love R32 GTR's (they're still my favourite) but you need deep pockets to own one these days (just ask GTRKat) :D

your just soft!! GTR always wins. its like an omega commonwhore vs a clubsport r8 :kiss:

Says the man who never drives his Supra... :D

The main thing everyone forgets about GTRs and R32s in particular. Sure the purchase price is cheap but many people can't afford the maintenance on them. If they're original turbos they're generally not far away from going, suspension is usually f**ked too.

I'm in the progress of turning mine into a monster but it can be slow progress depending on what your line of work is and what other expenses you have!

At the end of the day, it all depends on what the guy wants to buy! Maybe like many of us 32's are his favourite? Of course there's pros and cons to all of them.

My pinky (33) is loverly.... Mind you I saw a nice R32 painted in Champagne (lexus gold) with an RB30 n it for $13k.... I would go there... If I could afford that and Pinky :D *Mmmmmm daydreams about being able to afford both girls*

*Tis Melly*

the34 turbo was going good for around a year at 11psi, only let go after snapping (and i mean snapping) 2nd with semi's. + i got it for a case of coke'a'cola as it was on its way out.

I apologise for my error and I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive this mis-information... :whistling:

Basically all the info I've heard about the R34 turbo is that it breaks more easily than its older sibblings when boosted. Probably helped if I actually spoke to an R34 owner! :teehee: But I guess a big part of it comes down to how it has been treated over its life...

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 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...