Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Engine pretty much same... RB25

The main difference is in in the turbo between series 1 and series 2. The standard series 2 turbo has a plastic wheel turbo and hence can handle less horsepower then the series 1 ceramic.

Interior specs are different. To me series2 looks a bit more modern with more modern looking trim, but its fairly cosmetic and the front bar and bonnet looks slightly different. Airbag, drivers side airbag and ABS came a bit more standard on the series 2. Series 2 headlights are darker tint.

Otherwise they are fairly similar in terms of gearbox, diff, power, reliability, etc.

m spec question has been asked many times before... do a search

Thanks guys

damm right about the newbie, went for my first drive in one on Sunday, after checking out modifed 180sx etc ... previously owned turbo fours and a rotary .....

Really enjoy the ride and potential of the R33 .... have started pricing some goodies at JMS to help with the choices

There are quite a few cosmetic differences between the two:

- Different headlights (much better!)

- front bar with round indicator and spotlight (series 2)

- Dash fascia has rough finish rather than smooth for series 1

- Rear 'SKYLINE' lettering on bootlid is in same colour as car for series 2, as opposed to in clear plastic for series 1

- Higher boot spoiler on series 2, although did come out on '95 model series 1.

- Interior cloth trim different on series 2

Also you'll get twin airbags as standard in series 2, '93-'94 driver's airbag option, '95 driver's air bag standard. Not sure about ABS, I think it's an option on series 1, standard on series 2 (Don't quote me on that one!!)

Also some electrical components on engine are different, eg. coil packs

There might be more but that's what I have discovered anyway....

Hope it is of some help,

Cheers

a plastic wheel turbo? are u sure? wouldnt that...melt? hehe

..i think the ceramic turbo is stock in ALL SKYLINES series 1 & 2.

anyways, im buyin a series 2 in abt 2months, and i definately like it more than the series 1 look..plus its a newer car..if u can afford it $25-32000.

I think the plastic wheel thing is true. Must've been a cost cutting exercise, but some say it has a positive in that it spools quicker? JAGR33 covered the differences pretty well I think. As for ABS, it isn't standard in Series 2 either, in fact it's still quite rare to find ABS and sunroofs on Series 2s. My friend has a Series 2 with a sunroof (he was lucky) and no ABS. I prefer Series 2s personally, they look more modern.

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by V-meister

I think the plastic wheel thing is true. Must've been a cost cutting exercise, but some say it has a positive in that it spools quicker? JAGR33 covered the differences pretty well I think. As for ABS, it isn't standard in Series 2 either, in fact it's still quite rare to find ABS and sunroofs on Series 2s. My friend has a Series 2 with a sunroof (he was lucky) and no ABS. I prefer Series 2s personally, they look more modern.  

Hope this helps.

it not a cost cutting thing to have a plastic turbo wheel, it spools alot quicker and it very high strenght plastic that would never melt but rather just break off if pushed 2 much!

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...