Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Whats the project going on in the shed cal? :thumbsup:

lol standard corolla (carby power :) ) Dad's project, been respraying it for about 5 years now, just doesnt have time to finish it lol

Edited by 89CAL

Maxima Rear? Where?

2012-02-03173152.jpg

I'm struggling with that, too.

1995-1996_Nissan_Maxima_(A32)_30J_sedan_(2011-04-28)_02.jpg

Especially so as the quad tail lights on the Skyline dates back to 1973, seven years before the Maxima nameplate was created.

Having owned a few examples of both models - i'd suggest S15.

Newer, lighter, sexier (last ones debatable, i know).

Where are you located? Its my daily, but I have a black 200+ RWKW S15 I'd part with for the right price. mayyyyybbee.

PM me if keen.

post-86021-0-60279900-1336605469_thumb.jpg

Edited by iwanta34gtr

oh god are we back in 2006 again with the jaded rb20 powered r32 drivers trying to call out 33's as being heavy?

end of the day 33 has 25% more displacement, a far better gearbox, better brakes etc and when done right looks baller.

all this for about the weight difference of 3/5ths of f**kall

R32

1,280 kg (2,821.9 lb) (Type-M)

R33

1,390 kg (3,064.4 lb) (GTS-25t)

R34

1,410 kg (3,108.5 lb) (GT-T)

R32 with a RB25 = WIN

and if you think 110kg is 3/5ths of f**kall then your dreaming..

Edited by 51NNA

Especially so as the quad tail lights on the Skyline dates back to 1973, seven years before the Maxima nameplate was created.

The R33 is the standout car of all the modern R series Skylines that if it didn't have the quad rounds would simply not look like a Skyline from the rear. Nissan f**ked up with the styling, which is why the R34 went back to the more classic profile and boot shape. The R32 and R34 shape is linked to the R31, 30, all the way back to the 70s Skylines. The R33 is an aesthetic orphan.

The Maxima rear end reference I made is a serious sledge on just how generic mid 90s Nissan the rear end of the R33 is.

Dont buy an S15 over an R33! Sure they are good cars and the SR20 is a good motor, but how could you ever choose a farty 4 cylinder over a smooth and awesome sounding straight 6?!?!

The inline six is the whole reason I love Skylines (along with BMW's). The R33 is my least favourite looking Skyline out of the R32/33/34, but I still do like the look of them, and they can look really tough if done right. The "fattness" of them can be an asset with some nice fat rims and lowered to the right level. Series 2/3 front ends look heaps better too so grab one of those if you can. Or spend a few more $$$ and get an R34!

Edited by JustinP

R32

1,280 kg (2,821.9 lb) (Type-M)

R33

1,390 kg (3,064.4 lb) (GTS-25t)

R34

1,410 kg (3,108.5 lb) (GT-T)

R32 with a RB25 = WIN

and if you think 110kg is 3/5ths of f**kall then your dreaming..

It is f**k all when you consider the benefits it brings in component strength, braking, rigidity and HP.

The R33 is the standout car of all the modern R series Skylines that if it didn't have the quad rounds would simply not look like a Skyline from the rear. Nissan f**ked up with the styling, which is why the R34 went back to the more classic profile and boot shape. The R32 and R34 shape is linked to the R31, 30, all the way back to the 70s Skylines. The R33 is an aesthetic orphan.

The Maxima rear end reference I made is a serious sledge on just how generic mid 90s Nissan the rear end of the R33 is.

Go back to the C110 Skylines and you'll find the shape has more in common with 33s than 30s, 31s or 34s. I'd say if anything Nissan bastardised the Skyline brand with the shopping trolleys of the 90s and the abortion which is the R34 Gt-t. There is nothing at all classic about the 34 profile. The 32 and 33 share much in common and are more of a throwback to the original Skyline.

Go back to the C110 Skylines and you'll find the shape has more in common with 33s than 30s, 31s or 34s. I'd say if anything Nissan bastardised the Skyline brand with the shopping trolleys of the 90s and the abortion which is the R34 Gt-t. There is nothing at all classic about the 34 profile. The 32 and 33 share much in common and are more of a throwback to the original Skyline.

The classis Skyline profile is like the classic Celica profile - based on the classic Mustang coupe profile. You also see it in the Prelude and various other Jap cars. The R33 offers less of that and more visual bulk and blandness (like most 90s Nissans), coupled with unfortunate plastic garnish panels and so on.

I'm not saying the R32 is perfect. The embossed Skyline badge in the rear is a bit naff. The GTSt bonnet/grille area is full of fail compared to the GTR equivalent. But even with these things there is no comparison between 32 and 33. It's classic shape vs. complete fail. Ignoring the details expressed in the previous sentence, the shape of the 32 is correct, the shape of the 33 is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

The R34 goes back to the 32 shape. Actually almost all the way back to the R31. Again, some of the details aren't great, but the overall shape is correct. I would have an NA R34 over a turbo R33 just because I could live with the looks of the 34 and would always have buyer's remorse every morning when I walked out and saw the 33 in the driveway.

didnt R33's almost send nissan broke??

Eh? :ermm:

Well what do you want from it? There is hardly a 'best' turbo car, because it all comes down to opinion and what you want from it, etc.

Did I call it or did I call it?

The classis Skyline profile is like the classic Celica profile - based on the classic Mustang coupe profile. You also see it in the Prelude and various other Jap cars. The R33 offers less of that and more visual bulk and blandness (like most 90s Nissans), coupled with unfortunate plastic garnish panels and so on.

I'm not saying the R32 is perfect. The embossed Skyline badge in the rear is a bit naff. The GTSt bonnet/grille area is full of fail compared to the GTR equivalent. But even with these things there is no comparison between 32 and 33. It's classic shape vs. complete fail. Ignoring the details expressed in the previous sentence, the shape of the 32 is correct, the shape of the 33 is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

The R34 goes back to the 32 shape. Actually almost all the way back to the R31. Again, some of the details aren't great, but the overall shape is correct. I would have an NA R34 over a turbo R33 just because I could live with the looks of the 34 and would always have buyer's remorse every morning when I walked out and saw the 33 in the driveway.

Couldnt have said it better myself!

Eh? :ermm:

Did I call it or did I call it?

Yes, yes you did lol.

Edited by 51NNA

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

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • 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?
×
×
  • Create New...