Jump to content
SAU Community

  

65 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Ok, well Ive put a small deposit down on this car pending a full check over next friday at Hyperdrive so im not 100% locked into getting this car however the price is VERY good its done 88'000kms, its manual and Its advertised as:

GTST - MANUAL Series II M-Spec 1996

Now the front bumper/body kit was very badly damaged when he drove it up/down somebodys drive way "explains why its got a new one unpainted on the front"

But its not a SII front at all is it??

Im attaching some picktures so you guys can ahave a look and let me know what you all think.

Series 1. 1.5 or 2

* its advertised as II and I looked on his rego papers and it was registered as a Series 2.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/65086-gts-t-r33-series-i-or-ii/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont think it had a passengers side air bag. The dash and everything looks so damn clean.. almost looks new.. Its on a slight tilt towards the driver " the radio etc etc.. isnt that a series 2 design?

Butler: Yeah? The front bumper isnt stock

if it didnt have a passanger airbag its definatlly not series 2. But because it does have one in steering wheel it will be series 1.5 hey. Have a look at some pics for a 95 skyline and a 96 you'll see that the steering wheels are different. Those pics show a 95 (series 1.5) steering wheel.

if it didnt have a passanger airbag its definatlly not series 2. But because it does have one in steering wheel it will be series 1.5 hey. Have a look at some pics for a 95 skyline and a 96 you'll see that the steering wheels are different. Those pics show a 95 (series 1.5) steering wheel.

Ahh man.. Im worried now.. It must have at least one airbag because it says SRS airbag under the bonet, It also is dated as a 1996 build under the bonet.

Cheers pozza, Im going to look into the 1995 and 1996 models a bit more..

Its 100% a 1.5...

Has a series 2 motor with series 1 interia and series 1 front end (ie grill, bumer and most importantlly headlights... The series 2 has different head lights. If its a 96 model it cant be a swries 1.. It can only be 1.5 or series 2....

Must be a 1.5, as why would someone replace series 2 stuff with series 1 parts...

Sounds dodge, I've seen a Series I for sale from the dodgiest guy I've seen and it was badged under the bonnet as a 1997.

He even asked me what's the difference between a I, II model !

I think someone on here has a way of telling the year by the chassis number of something,

No that's not a Series II at all, headlights, bonnet, grille, front bumper, interior are all indicating Series 1.5. The only part which is the same as a Series 2, is the colour coded [skyline] panel at the rear, but all you have to do is paint a Series 1/1.5 clear part and it looks the same as a S2.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...