Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Comes down to preference for looks

They are much the same besides 33 being older / likely to have done more km and the NEO engine in the 34

33 probably better for modifying, 34 (slightly) better for reliability

Had both.

34 are better cos two cup holders, they're handy as - that being said I'm an idiot for giving it up for 33 gtr.

Cup holders aside, neo motor is pretty good little motor - people reckon neo head flow more than rb26 head. And VCT too.

Both are magical to drive and I'm sure they're still magical to drive nowadays - damn I want another one.

  • Like 1

I think alot of fellow SAU members would be in the boat of "I've driven both" and can provide their 2c.

It's personal taste more than anything else, yes they both have their differences but I would say in the end it comes down to two things:

1/ Cosmetic preferences - Do you prefer the curves of the R33 or the 'designed with a straight edge' R34?

2/ Resale value- Will the R33 start to claw back some of its value if kept tidy. I would argue that the GTT has now overtaken the r33 as the new jap commonwhore- atleast where I live.

On 6/26/2017 at 9:04 AM, Spec-s Gttt said:

Why not

Because having two turbos doesn't automatically make the car better or faster by any means, just complicates the setup. For a car that was originally single turbo you are better off just upgrading that turbo and ending up with the same result as if you went twin.

I recommend doing some reading on turbochargers and the various setups as it's not only interesting stuff but will help you to understand what works well and what doesn't.

This thread is clearly a trainwreck from the start

The 34 is objectively a superior car in every way. Noone has ever put a R33 RB25 in a R34, plenty of people have put Neos into other things. They're a better motor.

My thoughts are always, go and try both. You'll never know which you prefer from asking in this instance. Both are good and bad, have a drive of each and you'll know which you prefer. Cars are subjective and just because I like a car doesn't mean you will.
Have a go, it's more fun and you can then say you've driven both!

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...