Jump to content
SAU Community

R34 Vs R35 - Not School Holidays Yet, This Is Not What You Think.


Recommended Posts

FYI - V-Spec cars also came with the black interior after Model year 2000 and onwards.

but VS2 has the much sort after Carbon bonnet, which are bloody expensive to buy second hand. :rolleyes:

Cheers for the input guys. So safe to say that any spec will need bolt ons and a rebuild if the intention is to exceed 600-700whp. As far as the other specs are concerned, it's the asthetic look that makes them stand out more then the base model. safe to assume the Vspec 2 would be another $5-$10K more on the base model.

If you are looking to build for that power... get one with a good chasis... who cares about the rest

Another reason I bought the one I did, all the interior and floor tar was removed so I could see all seems and so I know I have a good undamaged chassis

If you are looking to build for that power... get one with a good chasis... who cares about the rest

I don't need or want that much grunt nor will I be removing interior/sound deadener etc.

Street car.

I'm sure he is referring to Ben as am I, I do want this much "grunt" and given when I ripped up the sound deadening in my 32 there is a bodgy repair under it I felt a lot better about buying the car being able to see all joins especially knowing want I wanted to do with it :)

I can answer this in a more logical way:

Having spent time in both cars....

The 35 is utterly brilliant, modern and technological master piece.

The 34 is a drivers car and requires input.

I own a 34 and would own a 35... but there is one thing stopping me.

The maintenance upkeep:

I can get a nismo twin plate clutch for my 34 for $2k and have it installed for $400... I would be scared to find out clutch replacement costs for a 35

My service for the 34 is $60 for oil and $15 for a filter, gearbox service is once every 60000kms and is $90... service costs for engine and gearbox is a 35 is...

265 road semi slicks are 250 for 265/35/18, cheapest tyres for a 35 i have heard of is $700 per corner

I havent mentioned mods or anything else, but you also have to look at how your budget and lifestyle meets you car requirements.

You either need:

A: Your own business (that does well)

B: To be senior in your career

C: Have a rich family to support you

If you own a 35 then obviously the cost factor in maintenance isn't a problem

As for the topic, I've owned both 34 and 35

Once you've driven a 35, you would never go back to the 34, its so 90s

Op. Have you driven either of these cars?

Like many have said. The 34 is a drivers car and the 35 purely is not. One is raw the other is designed to be smooth.

Do you like driving a manual And dumping the clutch? Or do you like flappy paddle gearboxes (apparently someone said is just like a manual car. Hmmmm sure)

Have you seen the size difference in these 2 cars?

This really shouldn't be such a big decision. Drive both and you will know which one is for you.

Not looking for someone else to make the call for me, and will definitely drive both, just interested in discussing the merits of both with informed commenters and it seems I'm not the only one.

I owned a 33, went for a spin in a similarly modified 34 and it felt very similar to my 33. Drove a 35 before Nissan released them here (just) but it was only a casual spin and yes size was notable as was interior quality differences and low down torque.

For me I think it will boil down to how I intend on driving it when it gets rolled out of the shed each fortnight/month.

Edited by ActionDan

one thing to remember the 34 came at a time when Nissan as a whole (not necessarily the GTR program) was on a down turn. the R35 is a resurgence .

Could always be a man and buy the ugly duckling (others opinion not mine) the 33 gtr ;)

  • Like 1

R35 is also first of a breed, and in many instances buying the first of something is risky business, where as the R34 is the last iteration of that family.

I had a 33, I'm one of the few who likes those too :)

I always wanted a 34, but as the R35 becomes more affordable it's a tough call.

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

    • 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.
    • 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. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...