Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

haha, i am not trading down, i am buying a 32 as my second car, because i hav been doing up my 33 and i dont wanna keep putting k's on it and wearing it out, plus... i like R32's.

So your basically saying there is a big difference, is there something u can compare it to?

ElBoRo

There's a reasonable difference in the engines (esp. stock).. but in terms of the feel and handling they're on par..

For me I traded 'down' as i wanted to completely re-setup my r33 .. that would have been stupidly expensive. Was cheaper to start again with a lighter chasis, and for me was half the price.

about 27kw's and 100kg's less. stock for stock i think 33's are only about 0.2 seconds quicker over a quater mile. Buy a 32, drop an rb25 in it and you'll never look back...

except maybe to see a few angry 33 drivers after you leave them for dead at the lights :(

Having been in a few std turbo R33s with the same mods as my R32 when it had the same mods, the R33s felt a lot quicker...that said they werent really any quicker, imagine my surprise on the straights at Eastern Creek and Wakefield when they couldnt pull away from me, well until the180km/h speed limiter:( That said maybe they would of easily left me for dead beyond 180km/h if i had my limiter disconnected, but ill never now.

So they feel way quicker, but for some strange reason the reality is they arent overly different, perhaps something to do with the power delivery etc and weights. So feel quicker and are marginally quicker, but not as much as you would think

for sure man dont get us wrong i myself live the RB20

i like the underdog i like to prove people wrong and i like upsetting people when it comes to cars

basically they are the same car but i prefer the rb20 basically its what started it all thats all i mean thats where the rb26 was platformed from

but thats just me and to be honest i dont like the look of the R33 i love 32s though but then again i loike the look of the old silvias as well

so ill stop ramblin

the best way to judge is

DRIVE ONE

DRIVE ONE

rb20 - less compression, less power, less torque, more boost, more rpm. However in a lighter car... so its very similar performance except the r32 will handle slightly better.

Brakes is similar as r33 brakes are better but have more weight to stop again..

Do remember r33 parts will be newer than r32 parts aswell, so be wary of anythin on the r32 that hasnt been looked after/changed! Go the 32 all tha way!! Mind u rb25 is a better engine, so mix to two as said b4 and ull have a killa car ;)

After having a RB25DET in a R32, I cudnt be more pleased .People didnt believe it was a standard turbo and I have scared many a passenger, the jesus bar on the passenger seat didnt exist so people used to grab for the A pillar, bit annoying :rant:

The RB25 was, 1000 times smoother, 1000 times more torquier low down, cud pull outta a corner at ease in 3rd at 30 km/h and had such a strong low end to mid range, it was frightening. I enjoyed being able to torch the rears in 3rd gear on demand - mind you on a stock turbo. The thing felt like a animal due to the light weight of the 32, itd just kick you back and shut you up. I regret selling it so much , but its alrite, I Will do another one again some time down the track!!!

For now its Series II whale powwaaa!!!

When the revolution comes anyone who has bolted an RB25 into an R32 will be the first to be lined up against the wall:)

But seriously all emotion aside, my thoughts...

Im all for putting an RB25 in the R32, but i dont see the point of ppl spending all their budget on putting a std motor in just to get 200rwkws, when they could get a HKS 2835 setup and make average power around 215-220 rwkws. Hell i think my average power is around 208rwkws:) Aint no std RB25 going to make that sort of average power let alone peak power.

However if you plan on putting a bigger turbo on the RB25, and having a play then i see the merit, but then i look at the dollars and you can have a std RB26 make 250rwkws pretty easily using std turbos, and reliably. There are pros and cons for both sides...its a matter of what you are after, if thats low down grunt then you will never like the RB20:)

Me i like old school turbo delivery, at 3,500 my thing comes on hard and is mega fun with 235rwkws, sounds great, goes good enough for 113mph 1/4 passes with 15psi, and i like the fact that i can drive around off boost quietly with little attention being drawn to me as my filter, turbo, BOV arent whistling their heads off at light throttle loads and rpm.

LOL..the thing has done something like 7 to 8 circuit/drag/drift days plus 3,000 road kms since Feb and still going strong.

Biggest problem with the R32 seems to be the gearbox...but throw a 2835 on an RB25 and you have what would be close to motoring nirvana:)

*Waits for sandown to drive your car*

After driving troys car a few months ago i was seriously considering keeping the RB20 and going with a larger turbo setup, its still a possiblity mind you. I would have to put an rb25 gear box on as toy said. But then again i want the massive torque and power from an rb30det. I'm torn between massive torque and low rpm, or a decent power output and a high revving screama.

People who have done the conversion understand what a huge step up a RB25 is from a RB20DET. I rmember going in MODDED RB20s and I cud make a cup of tea before it hit power, and then when it did it wud uselessly wheel spin. That was just shit. I liked a smooth linear power hit right from down low, this is where the RB25 delievered, true maybe 200 kw - but thats more torque than the little 2 liter makes! and In the lighter 32, off the line and on the run, it was hard to beat. My car didnt have any annoying suction noise either, used to cruise around quite comfortable, more fuel effieciently too.

You can put a big turbo on anything and be fast - hell put something like a GT30R and watch a stock internal RB25 happily pull 300 rwkw more comfortably than a RB20 wud, plus with that sized turbo on a 20, i could not only have a cup of tea, but a piece of cake too, before it came on boost and when it did, it wud wheelspin and be useless.

In my opinion, I wud never regret doing this conversion - In fact, I hope to again in the future do this and build a more powerful street car. I enjoyed it so much, I cant stress how good it felt, If it werent for the cruel police here, Id still have my old beast!

heres a Pic before I sold it, very sad day for me :)

People who have done the conversion understand what a huge step up a RB25 is from a RB20DET. I rmember going in MODDED RB20s and I cud make a cup of tea before it hit power, and then when it did it wud uselessly wheel spin. That was just shit. I liked a smooth linear power hit right from down low, this is where the RB25 delievered, true maybe 200 kw - but thats more torque than the little 2 liter makes! and In the lighter 32, off the line and on the run, it was hard to beat. My car didnt have any annoying suction noise either, used to cruise around quite comfortable, more fuel effieciently too.  

You can put a big turbo on anything and be fast - hell put something like a GT30R and watch a stock internal RB25 happily pull 300 rwkw more comfortably than a RB20 wud, plus with that sized turbo on a 20, i could not only have a cup of tea, but a piece of cake too, before it came on boost and when it did, it wud wheelspin and be useless.

In my opinion, I wud never regret doing this conversion - In fact, I hope to again in the future do this and build a more powerful street car. I enjoyed it so much, I cant stress how good it felt, If it werent for the cruel police here, Id still have my old beast!

heres a Pic before I sold it, very sad day for me :)

Like i said, not saying its a bad thing or a waste of time, but if bolting in the RB25 is the only thing you are ever going to do, then id say mod the RB20 with that money. And admittedly my thing takes a bit of coaxing in 1st and 2nd gear but in 3rd and 4th i have 18psi before 4,000rpm (more like 4150-4,200rpm in 2ndgear) and my think doesnt light up the tyres in 2nd gear. The only time it does is if you have crap on the tyres from driving over a dirty patch of road or they are bald like they are now.

So not arguing, and the RB25 is obviously the better canvas, no doubt, but ppl dont even seem to be aware that RB20s are good for a bit of fun, and run off and spend their money on an RB25 when they may have been happy with just a turbo upgrade. Anyway im just putting forward an alternate side of the story...which never sees the light of day:)

... I enjoyed being able to torch the rears in 3rd gear on demand - mind you on a stock turbo. The thing felt like a animal due to the light weight of the 32, itd just kick you back and shut you up...

LOL..i cant torch 2nd gear let alone 3rd, what were you saying about power delivery:)

I've driven an RB25DET making around 180rwkw. To be honest it felt slower than my rb20det making 164rwkw.

It didn't have that revy/snappy feeling and appeared not to have the keep on reving feel.

Now I have the rb30det making close to 180rwkw in the R32 it definitely has that rev snappy feeling, just at a lower rpm that all. :)

It must be a combination of the r32's lighter weight, lower diff ratio, slightly short gearbox ratio's andthe R33 having vct that may smooth out the power delivery. The r33 to me wasn't really 'fun' to drive.

I jumped back in to my r32 and had a smile on my face thinking thank god. :D

Sure the off boost torque of the rb25 was nice but the overall package didn't have that racey feel. Must just be the R32's, fun to drive. :)

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...