Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

All R32/33/34 GTS-(t/4)/GT-(t/4/v) are ugly

Out of the RB powered cars only the R34 GT-R looks the best, which I can't afford hence own an awful looking R33 GTS-t.. I own it purely for noise, performance and some what better handling/looks than a Commodore.

If a S15 had a RB25DET NEO and RB box factory I would own that instead... yes the idea of a conversion ran through my mind many times.. but I don't have the time to do it nor the space now unfortunately.

There's not much different between to R34Gtt and the GTR, a few minor cosmetic changes on the outside and BAM, you have a clean GTR.

Change the front and rear bar, skirts and rims on a Gtt to GTR parts and they're basically similar.

All R32/33/34 GTS-(t/4)/GT-(t/4/v) are ugly

Out of the RB powered cars only the R34 GT-R looks the best, which I can't afford hence own an awful looking R33 GTS-t.. I own it purely for noise, performance and some what better handling/looks than a Commodore.

If a S15 had a RB25DET NEO and RB box factory I would own that instead... yes the idea of a conversion ran through my mind many times.. but I don't have the time to do it nor the space now unfortunately.

Their from the 90's, they look pretty awesome even in todays standard. there are numerous R32,33,34 gtst/gtt's on this site that are far from ugly.

each to their own I guess, I still think all R33s are ugly.. but I love them.. just like how people have yellow VL commodores but in their eyes they're beautiful..

now that's a bad analogy lol

I'm a goose who thinks that R33s look like the unholy lovespawn of a 90s Maxima rear ending a 90s Magna. The boot line is daft, the length of the side between the back edge of the door and the rear wheel arch is too long, they are heavier than they need to be. The only things they brought to the party were the RB25 and bigger gearbox (both of which Nissan could have put into the R32 if they'd wanted to, because both were already available) and a slightly better front suspension design.

Nissan then realised that they'd screwed the pooch by doing the R34, which brought back the more classic 3 box sports coupe profile and proportions, and got rid of the anonymous 90s Jap car front and rear graphics that they stuck on the R33. And if you don't know what I mean by graphics, I don't mean stick on decals or what a video card outputs. I mean the 2D projection of what all the elements on the particular view of a car look like as a whole, ignoring the 3D shape aspects of it. Seriously. Look at the arse end of a 33. Ignore the 4 round lights and it could just be an old Maxima. Look at the front. Not significantly different to the shapes you see on the front of an old Magna. Just f**king awful.

So whilst the front end of the bonnet on a non-GTR R32 was a bit of a fail - everything else about the shape is true to the classic Mustang coupe profile that all the best sports coupes have had, including pretty much all of the preceding generations of Skylines. R34 likewise. One or two things that could be better (4 even sized tail lights would have looked better) but otherwise spot on. And whilst it is still heavy like an R33, at least it has more power to compensate.

Imo any skyline has the potential to look nice with a few cosmetic changes. The worst thing about the r33 is the bootlid (i know you can buy flush ones). A flush bootlid with a modified gtr spoiler to suit would look awesome.

It was intended for weight distribution according to Nissan catalogue

They decided that bigger boot space sells better than weight distribution so it's back to the front on non GTR r34s

R34 GTR still has it at the back

Edited by chiksluvit

Sounds just like my car. Including the bonnet.

Bonnet goes without saying.

I did the sums for mine and figured it was almost as cheap to buy a gtr, and then you get, you know, a rb26 and awd and stuff aswell.

May not have been the smartest move...

It was intended for weight distribution according to Nissan catalogue

They decided that bigger boot space sells better than weight distribution so it's back to the front on non GTR r34s

R34 GTR still has it at the back

Ahh ok, thanks for clearing that up for me : )

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...