Jump to content
SAU Community

Looking To Buy An R34

btownstorm23
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

performance would be about the same both cars quite low on power (34 may have a teeeny bit more but i think the difference wouldnt be very drastic - i drove the 2.5L RS model impreza and i found the performance to be pretty much the same on both) ... i do like driving my n/a 34 still though, its a nice car to drive

as long as you dont rice it up a whole ton and think its the fastest thing on the streets you will enjoy a flameless and happy time with your skyline :D if you want performance do get a gt-t .. their pretty much the same price these days as the n/a skylines

cons - no AWD, older, probably gna wanna put 98 octane fuel in it whereas you wouldnt in an impreza? oh and its an import - higher insurance and probably more expensive parts and the like

on that note do many people put 98 into a n/a skyline?

mad082 Grand Master

mad082

Posted
Posted

plenty of people will run their natro on 98 because they think they have to, but they don't. they will run fine on lower octane fuels (unless the timing has been advanced) as it's only the turbos that need to run on premium fuels. but any car (import or not) will generally run a bit smoother on premium fuels, but whether it is noticable or not is a different story.

lindz34 Enthusiast

lindz34

Posted
Posted

insurance & petrol would be the main financial differences, can't comment on performance cause I haven't been in an rx.

a mate had a peanut eye wrx before his evo, was a nice car to drive (he taught me manual in it) interior was pretty good & the four doors was nice & practical haha

I run my n/a on 98, mainly because I have to drive from eastern suburbs to collingwood for work everyday, figured the extra $10 per tank wouldnt hurt seeing as a do a fair few km's so wanna run it on the better stuff.

Spicky Enthusiast

Spicky

Posted
Posted

The 34 will have a bit more power and torque than the Impreza. But don't have any illusion about the performance of N/A's.

They are slow.

But as Jonno said, they are nice to drive. If at all possible go for a Gtt.

And i run my 34 on 98, they were designed to run on 91-93 octane fuel so it's not necessary but for the extra ~$5 bucks a tank why wouldn't you. Cleaner petrol is never a disadvantage.

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

ah well i wont be so picky about my fuel, i generally pour v - power into the skyline ever since it came out and caltex 98 before, but when i first got it it only ran on 91 octane ...

but yeah mines been great never had any mechanical problems with it, looks amazing especially since wheels/tyres ...

but yes .. it is slow :(

insurance isnt the worst, i pay about $700 a year which isnt too bad (unless you compare it to the sexcel which is around about 250)

the premiums would be a fair bit higher if you got the gt-t though so watch out for that! thats the main reason why i got a n/a 34 rather than a turbo one

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

hahaha nah once i sell the bunkie im hoping to get something more "fun" and performance orientated as a 2nd car and keep this as my just for looks car hahahaha

r31 skyline maybe - might do the turbo conversion on that one

or even an older xr6 turbo falcoon

nice cheapies that i can maybe take to tracks and wont cry about if it gets a stone chip or the like

Hanaldo Grand Master

Hanaldo

Posted
Posted

hahaha nah once i sell the bunkie im hoping to get something more "fun" and performance orientated as a 2nd car and keep this as my just for looks car hahahaha

r31 skyline maybe - might do the turbo conversion on that one

or even an older xr6 turbo falcoon

nice cheapies that i can maybe take to tracks and wont cry about if it gets a stone chip or the like

Probably the smarter option. I should have built a track car instead of trying to make this one both lol.

I say rock a Silvia or an R32, they always look mint in pig spec :thumbsup:

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

id love an r32 but their quite pricey (in comparison to the r31) ... my budget should be around 2k or so hopefully by the time im done fixing up this sexcel and selling it off

plus the family needs a 4 door boat anyway!

  • 3 weeks later...
iseekool Veteran

iseekool

Posted
Posted

performance would be about the same both cars quite low on power (34 may have a teeeny bit more but i think the difference wouldnt be very drastic - i drove the 2.5L RS model impreza and i found the performance to be pretty much the same on both) ... i do like driving my n/a 34 still though, its a nice car to drive

as long as you dont rice it up a whole ton and think its the fastest thing on the streets you will enjoy a flameless and happy time with your skyline :D if you want performance do get a gt-t .. their pretty much the same price these days as the n/a skylines

cons - no AWD, older, probably gna wanna put 98 octane fuel in it whereas you wouldnt in an impreza? oh and its an import - higher insurance and probably more expensive parts and the like

on that note do many people put 98 into a n/a skyline?

I run 98 (any brand) on my R34. It should run fine on 95, but for some reason it does feel sluggish and seems to be a little thirstier, when running 95.

Then again I have a rare n/a auto Mine's ECU ;)

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

yeah i have found my fuel economy got a little bit better when running it on v power ...

but really for 15c a litre more it may not be much savings there, but oh well only the best for my baby wub.gif

JDM34 Collaborator

JDM34

Posted
Posted

I've ran my N/A R34 on V-Power, BP Ultimate, Caltex 98, and Mobil Premium 98. Usually run it on V-Power since it's the only thing closest to where I live. Get around about 400km-500km out of a tank. Never tried anything less than 98RON, and according to the manual... 97RON should be the minimum.

Jonno34 Mentor

Jonno34

Posted
Posted

95 should be realistic minimum

the price difference from 95 to 98 isnt that big a gap is it really may as well just go 98 then... it seemed to run fine on 91 octane but i rarely drive my skyline anyway its no longer a daily so im happy to run it on good fuels :)

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kapr
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Kapr · Posted

      For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...