Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

mmm, i guess so. anyway, still for sale  

$1500

If you guess so then why is this so expensive?

I know of a Parts Yard in Sydney selling R32 GTS4 box's for $500

So in theory if this is basically the same, would you be willing to drop the price?

If the R32 GTS4 (4wd) gearbox is the same as a GTR one which is internally the same as a STOCK bullet proof R33 GTST gearbox, then what would make you think the R33 GTS4 gear box is any different.

Basically, what mad GT4 is trying to say is that Stock GTS4 and GTR gearboxes (which are the same unit) sell for $500 in some sydney Wreckers.

your one is the same.

That is the point he is making.

oh there is no doubt here.

the rwd r32 gearbox is piss weak compared to the rwd R33 gearbox.

But, if GTR's use the same gearbox as R32 GTS4's, then the R33 GTS4 4dw gearbox is the same as the GTR gearbox which is the same as the R32 GTS4 gearbox which is worth about $500 - $1000.

Just call a few places if you really want.

I'm just trying to clear up what people are saying here..

that's all.

cheers

Yeah that is the point i am making because to my understanding the ratios are different in the 32 GTS4 Box compared to the 32 GTR

I want different gear ratios because my car won't even pull close to 60km/h in first and i was under the beleif 32 GTR's would?????

Can anyone verify that for me?

And i didn't know 33 GTS4's came in manual, however JMS here in adelaide have an entire front cut from one GTS4 RB25DET with manual box????

What year did they come out manual turbo?

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...