Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

rs4s, has same atessa as 33gtr, same part time awd, and yes, the 260rs was a factory rb25 vehicle, and came with a rb25 plate. autech bought the rb25 stageas and just swapped engine, front/rear diff and shafts. other than that, its same as every other stagea.

The AWD/4WD thing cropped up in another thread a few days ago, and I made this post:

Technically speaking, if a car has 4 wheels and is an AWD, then it's also 4WD. AWD is just a marketing term that someone came up with when they didn't want their everyday passenger car to be confused with a Cruiser/Paj/Patrol type car.

Generally, people consider off road type cars with things like high/low range gearboxes and lockable front hubs to be 4WD, and cars like your WRX/Liberty to be AWD. I'd put the Stag in the AWD camp, because it doesn't have a high/low range box, doesn't have lockable front hubs, doesn't have good ground clearance and wouldn't be much good off road. Landcruiser is a weird one because it's always in 4WD mode, but I'd still class it as 4WD because of the ground clearance, high/low range box and lockable front hubs. Foresters are a weird one too because some (all?) of them have a high/low range box, but I'd still go with AWD because of the lack of lockable front hubs, average ground clearance and of course it's a Subaru.

Basically, the way I see it, if it's the kind of car that's great for 4WD trails, it's a 4WD. If it's a passenger car that has all wheels driven for performance/safety reasons and it's shite off-road, it's an AWD.

All you are talking is slang. im talking about technical differences. all is all and 4 isn't always all. mong:)

As for this, you're both talking slang. There are no "technical" differences between 2 acronyms. All they are is acronyms. What matters most is how people interpret them. There is no difference between the MEANING of the 2 acronym's, provided the vehicle in question has 4 wheels. The difference is what people think they mean.

So everyone, call it AWD or 4WD, it honestly doesn't matter. It's the same damn thing. Just don't call your stag/GTR a fourbienyaanyaa.gif

  • 1 month later...

well as far as i knew the AWD meant you didnt have to lock hubs in when back in the 80's the 4WD'd like patrol required you to get out the car and lock the front hubs in by a switch to engage them.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/158104-my-r32-4-door-feat-rb26/

my car.

Differences are

gts4 has:

gts-t brakes

RB20 spec gearbox

shorter ratio diff

gts-t body (no flared guards)

gts-t interior trim.

Everything else is identical to gtr AFAIK.

so in other words, it much closer to a GTS-t than GTR. all it really shares with the GTR is the ATESSA system, pretty much everything else is GTS-t spec.

Afaik 32 gts4 dont share the same attessa anyway so its all different.

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

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...