Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok so I’m still in the process of selling my 97 gts-t, but once that is done I want one of three cars. I can not decide between these cars and I hope you guys will help me out. I will point out my ideas for each car.

96-98 Supra (i think its the rz model) twin turbo - ok I have always liked supra's the shape and style and i have heard the twin turbos are very quick. I am just not sure if i want to move away from skylines.

98-99 r34 gt-t skyline I really like the idea of a newer cars and don’t mind a little less power for a much newer car and shape. Yeah I really do like the neo engine and the r34 shape. one problem with buying a gt-t is i think that the value would drop a lot more and a lot quicker then the supra or gtr. I don’t like the idea of having a car that is common in a few years and worth half the money.

95-96 r33 vspec gtr skyline what do i need to say gtr's are the shit much respect... I just don’t think it would be in as good condition in-side or out as the gt-t or supra having a car that looks and feels new is important to me... if it wasn’t i would be looking at r32 gtr's...

Before I started this thread i felt like i had a lot more to say... but now that it’s down I can’t think of much... :)

Thoughts?

cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46510-the-great-debate/
Share on other sites

if i had the choice, i would get the r34, because in my encounters they seem to be the least common on the road in my area (dont know about the cities) and its the newer car of the three. i guess the downfall would be that it is the least powerful out of the choices. but i reckon the very best option would be to give me the money instead :P lol. good luck to ya in your choice, no doubt you will be over the moon with any of those 3 cars!!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46510-the-great-debate/#findComment-944433
Share on other sites

if you want more performance for you money go the gtr, its a fair bit quicker than the gt-t and awd is a bonus. I havent seen many r33 gtrs in bad condition, alot of them are in immaculate condition.

TT supras are nice, plenty of potential but i think the back seats are a very tight fit.

I cant really say much about the GT-T.

If i were you i would be getting the GTR, after all its a gtr - Nissan's ultimate. but thats just me...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46510-the-great-debate/#findComment-944475
Share on other sites

true, the gtr is an icon, and you can say you own a gtr, lol. but the r33 seems to be very common these days, and its only gonna get older. it would definitely be a toss up between the r34 and r33, the r34 is less common, but the gtr would have the better performance, and you have already owned a 33 gtst, so it might be a good change for a different looking skyline?? really depends on wat u are looking for in the car. in my opinion-

performance, icon status of car = r33

newer car, less common = r34

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46510-the-great-debate/#findComment-944576
Share on other sites

thats abit expensive isnt it?

you could import a 95 - 97 gtr for that

That would be making the wild and crazy assumption that the r33 is a superior car.

Why do you think r32 gtr's in immaculate condition cost MORE than immac. r33 gtrs in japan?

There is a reason. :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46510-the-great-debate/#findComment-944602
Share on other sites

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 see, honestly I’m not too fussed about the looks. The only reason to go plenum is to make the piping easier instead of the classic over the rad etc. 
    • Not easy to quantify wrt something like how many fractions of a second slower it would be over 0-100. But given that a 250-300rwkW car is able to do that launch sprint in 5-6 sec (and faster with appropriate tyres, and surface)..... giving up as much as a second would feel like torture. A ~450HP capable turbo is not going to make lots of boost in the 2000-3000 rpm range. So, whilst with some boost on hand it will be faster accelerating in that rev range than your engine currently is NA, it will not feel like a fast car until the boost is solidly in. You know what your car feels like right now when you open it up at 2000rpm. if you've ever been in an actual fast car, you will appreciate that the NARB25 is.... not exciting. Well, add some boost and it will be better. But shorten the intake runners and it might not be better at all. It might come out better, but it could end up feeling the same. For me, it's not the 0-X km/h sprints that matter. It is easy to fry the tyres with anything over 200 rwkW. You can't use all the power available in 1st and 2nd anyway, you have to modulate the throttle. What matters is how the car reacts when you're driving in traffic in 4th or 5th and have maybe 2000 rpm on board, and you want/need to add some speed quickly, and don't have time for the downshift. It won't make boost, it will be all NA (at the speeds we're talking about - remember how fast you're going at 2000 in 4th! and don't plan on breaking the limit by too much.) So giving away NA torque is not what I would consider practical for a street car. And retaining that NA torque builds boost faster which makes the car faster. The flashy plenum is not actually better, unless you're looking at a track car where you can keep it on the boil all the time.  
    • So how much difference does it make you think? Like 1 second in the 0-100?  I was have smaller turbo so hopefully that spools quick GTX2871.  currently it’s NA so you can imagine pretty slow, but I do want fast accusation a little as there’s not many places I’ll be driving where I go over 80 even near me. So 0-60 and 0-80 targets   
    • Short inlet runners cost quite a bit. Dulls off the off-boost torque, and delays boost onset, because arrival of boost is driven by gas flow is a product of the ability to flow air which is torque. This is the reason that the stock manifolds have longer runners. On a 3L, or bigger, you can usually accept the compromise of giving away some torque because the extra capacity gives you a little extra to waste. But on a smaller motor, there's not a lot there to start with. Example, I swapped RB20 out of my R32, 25NeoDET in its place. The "wall of torque" that I experienced afterwards made it all worthwhile. That's because I came from RB20 land where torque is not a thing. But I would not do anything, anything at all, to reduce the low/mid torque I have now, because I remember what it is like to not have it!
    • Really, low/midrange torque goes really bad?? I want decent acceleration, maybe I use a stock rb25det neo manifold?    
×
×
  • Create New...