Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

this might be a newbie thread but please bare with me. Just wondering how does a STOCK/ SLIGHTLY MOD GT-T compare with cars like S15s, STIs, GTSTs, rexs, SS, XR8s. Can anybody put them in order whereby a GT-T is more likely to win or lose to any of them in terms of 0-100km/h timings and 1/4 mile timings. S15s are fairly light cars, i reckon the S15 will be faster than the GT-T? correct me if i'm wrong please. Thanks!

Cheers!!! :sadam:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/79065-r34-gt-t-vs-others/
Share on other sites

Would think an STi would win the 0-100 dash

most would do it in around mid 6 seconds

GTT should beat an S15 -specially with a little tuning 1/4mile

& the WRX should get whipped

SS and XR8 may be a little slower down quarter...all depending on traction etc...

but they can be bloody quick too!

All around low-mid 14sec mark as far as i know. (STi prob high 13's)

The aussies would kick ass in torque figures obviouslly, but round a track

jappies would clean up. That's my thoughts anyway!

Easiest way to see is go to a site like www.svi.com.au and click the products screen and it gives u the 0-100, power and other details for common imports. Then compare that with manufacturer figures for WRX's, falcons and commos.

05 Man SS 1654kg @ 250kw = 6.616kg/kw

05 Man XR8 1740kg @ 260kw = 6.692kg/kw

GTT (manual coupe) 1410kg @ 206kw = 6.844kg/kw

05 STI Man 1475kg @ 195kw = 7.564kg/kw

S15 Man 1235kg @ 147kw = 8.401kg/kw

Factory kerb weights and power from redbook,motortraders

& carsales. Maybe STI > SS > XR8 > GTT > S15 using only numbers?

Spot on! Just checked in a Motor mag lying around:

1st place: STi 0-100km/hr: 5.74s 1/4mile: 13.82s

2nd place: SS 0-100km/hr: 5.82s 1/4mile: 13.99s

2nd place: XR8 0-100km/hr: 6.11s 1/4mile: 13.99s

4th place: WRX 0-100km/hr: 5.81s 1/4mile: 14.01s

5th place: 25 GTT 0-100km/hr: low 6's 1/4mile: ~14.2s

6th place: S15 0-100km/hr: ~6.9 s 1/4mile: ~14.8s

7th place: Magna VRX AWD 0-100km/hr: 8.60s 1/4mile: 16.49s

5th and 6th aren't in the mag, however S15

Spot on! Just checked in a Motor mag lying around:

1st place: STi 0-100km/hr: 5.74s 1/4mile: 13.82s

2nd place: SS 0-100km/hr: 5.82s 1/4mile: 13.99s

2nd place: XR8 0-100km/hr: 6.11s 1/4mile: 13.99s

4th place: WRX 0-100km/hr: 5.81s 1/4mile: 14.01s

5th place: 25 GTT 0-100km/hr: low 6's 1/4mile: ~14.2s

6th place: S15 0-100km/hr: ~6.9 s 1/4mile: ~14.8s

7th place: Magna VRX AWD 0-100km/hr: 8.60s 1/4mile: 16.49s

5th and 6th aren't in the mag, however times are pretty close to published figures somewhere in some mag. So what we came 5th! but for the price difference you could make them look like a Magna ;)

Erm...sorry guys to mention this but i meant JDM S15s...=P i think it's more like this

1st JDM S15 Spec R 0 - 100km/h = 5.52secs

2nd WRX STI Manual 0 - 100km/h = 5.74secs

3rd Holden SS Manual 0 - 100km/h = 5.83secs

4th 25GT-T R34 Manual 0 - 100km/h = 6.00secs

5th Ford XR 8 Manual 0 - 100km/h = 6.11secs

6th GTS25T R33 Manual 0 - 100km/h = 6.21secs

These are all stocks timings i reckon.

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...