Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Need a set of r32 gtr front callipers and noticed a thred mentioned r33 gtst were the same. Can anyone confirm this for sure? I know Z32 four pots are simular but use smaller pistons. Not sure if this is the case with R33 gtst items.

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/95554-front-callipers-gtr-gtst-the-same/
Share on other sites

Hi,

Need a set of r32 gtr front callipers and noticed a thred mentioned r33 gtst were the same. Can anyone confirm this for sure? I know Z32 four pots are simular but use smaller pistons. Not sure if this is the case with R33 gtst items.

Thanks

I have a full set (front and rear) of Nissan (not Brembo) R32GTR callipers that have recently been fully serviced, let me know via PM if you are interested.

:) cheers :)

Edited by Sydneykid

Thanks Duncan. Just what I needed to know.

The 32 GTR and 33 GTST calipers are the same size, same pistons and deisnged for the same disc.  There are some external differences (eg GTR has finned calipers)

(eg GTR has finned calipers)

Ive got 32 GTR calipers on my car. They dont have the fins on them. I searced around before i bought them, as i thought as you did that they came with fins.

I can gurantee the ones i got are oem 32 GTR calipers, and they are not finned.

The only difference between the r33 gtst and the r32 setup is that the r32 GTR setup uses 32 mm thick rotors, and the gtst uses 30mm rotors (when new of course) :)

Does anyone know the part numbers for R32 gtr front callipers? Are there any markings on them to confirm this?

Ive got 32 GTR calipers on my car. They dont have the fins on them. I searced around before i bought them, as i thought as you did that they came with fins.

I can gurantee the ones i got are oem 32 GTR calipers, and they are not finned.

The only difference between the r33 gtst and the r32 setup is that the r32 GTR setup uses 32 mm thick rotors, and the gtst uses 30mm rotors (when new of course)  :)

Pretty sure one visual difference is that the R32 GTR calipers have the word "Nissan" cast onto a flat smooth caliper surface whilst the R33 ones still have "Nissan" cast onto them but it is cast on top of a raised ridge section.

Hard to explain without pics.

Can anybody confirm one way or the other that 32 GTR calipers are alloy and R33 are not?

You mean like this for a R32 GTR?

post-22417-1133067429.jpg

And a R33 like this?

post-22417-1133067505.jpg

Is that wright?

Pretty sure one visual difference is that the R32 GTR calipers have the word "Nissan" cast onto a flat smooth caliper surface whilst the R33 ones still have "Nissan" cast onto them but it is cast on top of a raised ridge section.

Hard to explain without pics.

Can anybody confirm one way or the other that 32 GTR calipers are alloy and R33 are not?

The bottom one is 300zx/32 gtst, not 33.

33 (and 34)gtst calipers are much chunkier looking without the round bits where the pistons sit

The pic below is of a 34 caliper on an r32gtst, the 33 looks pretty much the same but sit's a little further in due to a smaller rotor.

post-2863-1133419517.jpg

I will take your word on that. Didnt know there was a difference between 32gtst and 33 calipers but just knew his top pic was what I assumed GTR calipers to be as thats what they have looked like on every GTR 32 I have seen and aslo what my calipers look like which I was told where 32 GTR.

But still, can anybody confirm R32 GTR calipers are alloy and the others are not??

Thanks for that. Yeah I know the bottom pick I posted was actually a 300zx calliper, I was more interested identifing a R32 gtr calliper and was trying to find a calliper with the curved section fastgts-r was talking about.

The bottom one is 300zx/32 gtst, not 33.

33 (and 34)gtst calipers are much chunkier looking without the round bits where the pistons sit

The pic below is of a 34 caliper on an r32gtst, the 33 looks pretty much the same but sit's a little further in due to a smaller rotor.

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...