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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...