Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Although the GTS-4 handles better than a GTST

But what is handling? I think handling is the ability to change your line mid corner, move the car around under brakes. Perhaps dive too deep under brakes and still get away with it without plowing off the road. Those are the sorts of things i associate with handling, the chuckability and that sort of invincible feeling a car can give you.

Now whilst im feeling invincible its the grip thing that sometimes lets down the handling. And your right in the wet there is no comparison, but in the dry, given the same tyres the GTST will have the same grip but with less weight to carry.

Out of slow speed 2nd gear corners perhaps more traction...but then again how many RB20 powered cars have problems in 2nd gear...not many:)

How is awd helping me coming out of a 3rd gear corner at 80km/h. At 160km/h in 4th gear how is AWD helping me. In my eyes its just another 60-70kgs im carrying around...and id rather a crate of home brew in the back:)

And how is the extra weight helping handling...weight is the death of handling, so you cant say it handles better because its AWD. The argument could be put forward it has better traction...but anyway each to their own...we all like different things from cars, so like i said test drive both and make up your own mind:)

Somone will know for sure the weight difference, it may only be 70kgs, but surely its where the weight sits?

As for my wheels, it will brake my heart to part with them, but the rubber has to go, its only going to harden in storage, the wheels will keep though if they dont sell:)

For an "expert" opinon check out these two threads. They did a comparasion on the autospeed website.

R32 GTS-T - http://autospeed.drive.com.au/A_0853/page1.html

R32 GTS-4 - http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1289/article.html

As for handling, handling comes down to how well a car pulls through a corner. The GTS-T will pull through a corner much more quickly due it lower weight and its centre of gravity being much more pulled towards the rear of the car. Where the GTS-T would fail is if the tyres begun to lose grip and this is where the 4WD overcomes it. But retain traction with good quality tyres and the GTS-T will pull out just as quick. One thing you also have to realise is that the GTS-4 is not a constant 4WD system like the WRX's or EVO's and therefore doesn't have the same sort of failsafe driving manner that is present in the constant systems.

GTS-T better.. weight less.. chuck.. fun..

Basically I agree with what Baz is saying above..

my gts-t weighs 1270kg.. and there is about another 50kg I can strip out off the top of my head.. the 89/90 models are the lightest of the lot..

GTS-T's don't have much of a problem with losing traction at the front with decent tyres. In fact with the less weight over the front and in general, may have better turn in and give you bit more exit speed out of the corner. Depends how you like to drive I guess..

"Better" & "Fun" are very subjective words - Each to their own, I say. All Skylines are good - Hopefully there is enough info in this thread for the thread starter to make a decision :)

hey,

just as a little bit of personal expierence, i had a run against a stock'ish gtst, i owning a gts4. i had my mate in the car (we're both about 6'3 and weigh a bit') and the two in the gtst looked rather average size. it was a rolling run from about half way through 2nd, and his car just kept slightly pulling away.. nothing drastic, but i just cant help to think it was just the added weight of the 4wd stuff that held us back.. ;)

in the wet though, traction is bless. my mates rb20 powered vl is shocking, where as ive had to nail it to catch up to speed on a merging lane and apart from some initial loss, i pulled hard and barely broke traction in 2nd. id imagine a gtst just sliding side to side as it struggles to remain stuck on the road.

shaun.

This is where people misunderstand. There is a difference between handling and grip. Best example, WRX. WRX's grip, but handling needs work on.

Of course the GTS4 will grip better. But take the GTS4 out on the circuit and it will suffer more understeer than a GTST. Weight up front you can't help. But here is where it becomes subjective. Some prefer their car to understeer while others prefer oversteer.

Like Roy, I've become a purist. RWD action for me because I'm a control freak and don't want computers thinking for me.

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

    • 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...