Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

the spec S is the basic version

Spec R has

body kit - side skirt, rear wing

sunroof

6 CD stacker

GT version can come which either spec S / R, but only limit to late 2002 model

which has

leather front seat

leather steering wheel, gear knob

sport pedal

chrome wheel

a few chrome interior

and big rear wing

the spec S is the basic version

Spec R has

body kit - side skirt, rear wing

sunroof

6 CD stacker

GT version can come which either spec S / R, but only limit to late 2002 model

which has

leather front seat

leather steering wheel, gear knob

sport pedal

chrome wheel

a few chrome interior

and big rear wing

so in other words... if i was going to 'fully' do up a S15 im wasting my money if i buy a Spec R OR GT because that stuff is going to get changed anyway... right?

yup. but i found a lot of people "think" of fully done up their car, but can't finish at the end.

with a car like this u can't resist spend money on performance side

True True.... but i aint that hard (money wise) to change the ie:

leather front seat

leather steering wheel, gear knob

sport pedal

chrome wheel

a few chrome interior

and big rear wing

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...

For the record

I bought an S15 SpecS GT in 2002 (2001?? the last few months of supply brought out the GT anyway.) Previously I had looked at all the brochures etc, including the details for the GT when it was available.

For australian deliveries:

As mentioned above, ignoring the GT, the Spec R was identical to the Spec S, excepting it had the sunroof, side skirts, small rear wing and six-stacker. I have a nagging feeling there was one more option, but I'd have to check. You could option up the Spec S to add the extras, not including the sunroof of course. You could not get a Spec R without the extras - something you might have wanted if you like sunroofs but wanted to add your own bodykit or audio.

Manuals all have the 6 speed with the helical diff. Auto's all have the 4 speed box with a non-helical diff. Not sure if it's viscous, plate or whatever, since I wasn't interested in the auto.

For the GT's, they added leather to the front seats, door panels, gear knob and steering wheel, alloy-look pedals (but just an overlay, not real alloy pedals), slightly shinier rims but with identical size and styling, the larger 'Aero' rear wing, and of course the little GT badges under the front/side indicators.

I specced up my Spec S GT only with the side skirts, but the 6-stacker was still an option too.

No aussie car had a rear wiper, that was probably deleted to save a bit of cost. So I reckon the rear wiper is probably a reliable indicator of a jap import; trust that more than any badgework such as the Z-shaped symbol (in place of the nissan circle) or Silvia badging in place of the 200SX badge. The aussie models still had the word Silvia in a few places: above the glove box, on the door steps (visible when you open the door), and in the main headlight unit, so that means nothing about JDM vs. ADM

The aussie cars had the same engine as the S14, with the variable cam black top putting out 147kW, instead of the uprated donk of the JDM S15. The jap releases got a rollerbearing '28 turbo, changed wastegate and dump pipes, and probably a few other fiddles, resulting in around 187 kW power (around 180, i forget the exact number).

I know less about the jap-specs, but I understand that the Aero model (distinguished by the large wing) could even be optioned up with the HICAS 4-wheel steer system that nissan has put in other vehicles such as the bluebird and of course the GT-R. I'd be interested to feel that in action, since the stock Aussie car has the traditional understeer-in-on-power, oversteer-out-on-power of a spirited RWD. The nissan 4WS is supposed to encourage oversteer on corner entry and counter the oversteer on corner exit, and that would be just what the doctor ordered. Downside would be the effect of the extra weight.

No aussie delivery had the 4WS, but they had the same rear sub-frame and large HICAS-ready

bushes, consequently it's a bit cranky when you're on the edge of traction; when the bushes load up you take a certain stance with the steering angle, but if you lose traction (like on a little bump on a typical road) the bushes unload, the angle goes for a wander and you have to catch it; when you catch it you have to adjust again to the loaded state. Makes for a fair whack of sawing on a long fast corner, and you have to be comfortable you know how to avoid bumming out backwards or plowing off the road.

Damn this is getting off-topic. I'll stop now.

  • 2 weeks later...

please go on ( dont! stop! --- oooh dont, stop! dont stop !! )

I am thinking of getting an s15 silvia Soon ish - reason being I dont think I want something as chunky as an r34 , sunroof meh.. nice to have - but the only reason I was going for the spec R is the helical LSD_ but you have just advised me in a very convincing post that both the spec R and the Spec S have this - so I would rather get a tidier spec S and spend a bit less and kit it up myself if I wanted rather than makde the uneductated decision to buy the spec R in the false beleif its the only one with the Helical LSD

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...