GTR Forum banner

41 - 60 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Have you considered renting an R35 for a week? I think that would be long enough to get a better idea for whether you really would like living with one.
Personally yes I have.

But the fever broke and i got better.

I have a 34 V-Spec and would not, in any conceivable universe, swap to a 35.
Too big.
Too heavy.
Too UGLY. (the kink in the rear roof line makes me want to hurl)
Too Renault.

(thought i'd get in before the thread gets locked)
Have a great/night day all!
How did you find it to drive compared to the r34?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
What kind of value would be put on the two cars i wonder?

Gtr is a 98 spec 3 with 175k kms. I had it rebuilt by tdp a good few years back, r34 turbos, forged pistons, mines clocks, mines front pipe, titanium exhaust and it made 444whp (484fwhp). Nearly new Rf1's 18x10.5.

Supra is 94 sz with 135k kms. It has basically a stock 2jzgte vvti in it. Trd shocks, hks exhaust, fmic. Its running near stock boost so id day its around 350fwhp. Manual 5 speed. I did a full service including wp, tb etc on the car.
To me they'd stack up:
Supra - between 15-20k NZD. Would be more if RZ spec.
Skyline - 30-35k NZD. With the investor bubble in the US the smart money for all Skyline GT-R owners is to find a tuning shop in the States who want a project for a promo/shop demo car. You'll get up to about 50% more out of a US buyer because they haven't been able to have them previously.
Plus the bonus that you won't see it at the lights and have the regret that comes with the "i shouldn't have sold it" feels. The 33 was always the less popular of the Skyline's, in spite of it being markedly better than the 32 and more aerodynamic than the 34. To me it's the best option for someone wanting an affordable zilla :)

Just my two cents (pents?) worth :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
How did you find it to drive compared to the r34?
Boring.
Unimaginative.
The interior instrumentation gives you a lot of information but you can't really do much with it.

A great and competent GT car, sure but i don't trust the gearbox in Auckland's traffic (which is always crap nowadays) and to me it feels too heavy.

I love my old datto to bits though and that's where the big problem really is.

(I tried to insert an image here but Drive is being a ****)
 

·
R35 Section manager
Joined
·
10,707 Posts
Personally yes I have.

But the fever broke and i got better.

I have a 34 V-Spec and would not, in any conceivable universe, swap to a 35.
Too big.
Too heavy.
Too UGLY. (the kink in the rear roof line makes me want to hurl)
Too Renault.

(thought i'd get in before the thread gets locked)
Have a great/night day all!

The 34 is a good car but on a track it struggled to prove itself against the 33!

All modern cars have got bigger mainly down to the safety aspect so nothing new there.

The 35, too Renault?! LOL-No
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
The 34 is a good car but on a track it struggled to prove itself against the 33!
Yup true, the 33 (as I stated) is more aerodynamic than either the 32 or 34.
I said that though, so unsure why you've said that again.
You illude to it but don't back it up - so let me help you out.
The 32's bridge to gantry time was 8:22
The 33's was 8:01
The 34's was unrecorded as it was reported as slower than the 33.
If you're going to troll - at least do your homework.

The 34 is my preference for many reasons, including its getrag transmission that the previous generations didn't have, the look and the engine factoring in as well.

All modern cars have got bigger mainly down to the safety aspect so nothing new there.
Er, yes? They have? It's why I don't like them?
More-over the old adage of "Add lightness" holds true to literally every form of motorsport and performance vehicle. It's better all round for a car to be lighter with less power than a two tonne behemoth with a big engine - better stopping, better acceleration, handling, weight balance...

The 35, too Renault?! LOL-No
Er, yes? The vehicle was released after the merger and if you look at the lines of, say a Meganne RS they are very similar. Not to the same extent as the new Supra is a BMW but it's along the same lines.

So with your post's glaring inadequacies addressed - I notice you never said the 35 looks better.
At the end of the day, the car i want to see in my garage is my purple 34 V-spec.
Not a 35. Not a 33. Not a 34 V-Spec II Nur.

I love my car and, to me at least, nothing comes close and nothing ever will.
Here's a clicky thing to show why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I really doubt the R34 was slower than the R33. Aero was comparable, the R33 didn't have the front/rear diffuser of the R34 which reduced drag. Maybe the tall final drive didn't help at 3.545 but the RB26 is kind of a dog below ~4000 RPM, the getrag 6 speed helps to keep it in the powerband. The R34 is actually true zero/negative lift in the front end whereas the stock R33 is just near zero front lift. The R33 also doesn't have a lot of the chassis reinforcements that the R34 got.

The R33 is theoretically capable of matching an R34 if you retrofit all of the R34 bits but that's theoretical, not a production car. Finding a Getrag V160 these days is difficult and they're quite expensive as well.

These are all old cars anyways, I don't see the value in trying to do this kind of benchracing when a 991 turbo will leave all of these cars in the dust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
LOL Porsche's try it on quite regularly.
My old GT-t could spank them but that had a serious amount of work.
My R doesn't even break a sweat (GT-3's notwithstanding) it has no trouble out-pacing Porsche's, BMW's, Audi's, Merc's and Mustangs that try it on (also Commodores and Falcons but I don't think you guys really have those over there)

Less about the power it has, more about the power it can put down, again ATTESA was years ahead of other stuff.

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
The 991 turbo has an AWD system significantly more advanced than what shipped in the 90s era GT-Rs, the rear wheel steering is also more advanced as well. It's about as fast as a 991 GT3, it's slower in corners due to the extra weight but makes up for it on corner exit + straights. The core actuator isn't that different but the control system is significantly more advanced.

It is also significantly faster than an R35 at this point by virtue of the extra power, less weight, and overall more refined design.

Modern cars are just more capable, it's not really in doubt. I think any attempt to keep these cars up to par with the latest thing in performance is kind of pointless.

I'm not saying you shouldn't modernize the car in some ways though, it's not a painting. I'm just saying trying to make it beat a 991 Turbo or a similarly modern rocket sled is going to compromise the car for not much reason when you could just buy a C7 ZR1 or 991 Turbo/GT2 and have a crazy amount of performance in a reliable, relatively comfortable package.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Yeah - all in all i always say that my car isn't as fast as newer lower spec offerings.
As Barney Stinson says:
"New is always better"

Getting back to the OP:
I'll hand on heart say that stock for stock the 35 is a better car in many many ways.
I would still choose my dirty RB any day of the week.
XD
 

·
R35 Section manager
Joined
·
10,707 Posts
If you're going to troll - at least do your homework.

So with your post's glaring inadequacies addressed - I notice you never said the 35 looks better.


I've been here long enough to see a Troll-Pot kettle black I think they say:chuckle:

In all honesty I don't think the 35 looks better than the 34, but equally I don't think the 34 is the better looking of the 2 cars as they are completely different to each other.
The 2 models really don't compare at all-You either want a modern car with all the toys,handling,comfort or a 34 with its own unique look.

To me the 34 looks dated now but it would do as car styling has moved on, with more rounded car bodies and safer build quality- For myself blue was the best colour for the 34.:eek:

As for the 35 looking like a Renault, I can't see that but you are entitled to an opinion even if its wrong:chuckle:
 

·
Owner of the MSNSPS
Joined
·
5,172 Posts
I really doubt the R34 was slower than the R33. Aero was comparable, the R33 didn't have the front/rear diffuser of the R34 which reduced drag. Maybe the tall final drive didn't help at 3.545 but the RB26 is kind of a dog below ~4000 RPM, the getrag 6 speed helps to keep it in the powerband. The R34 is actually true zero/negative lift in the front end whereas the stock R33 is just near zero front lift. The R33 also doesn't have a lot of the chassis reinforcements that the R34 got.

The R33 is theoretically capable of matching an R34 if you retrofit all of the R34 bits but that's theoretical, not a production car. Finding a Getrag V160 these days is difficult and they're quite expensive as well.

These are all old cars anyways, I don't see the value in trying to do this kind of benchracing when a 991 turbo will leave all of these cars in the dust.
I think that Nissan had painted themselves into a corner. The record setting R33 was certainly running extra boost and if my memory serves special tyres. Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.

I guess if they did the same to the R34 to get a better time it would have too much focus and perhaps too many questions asked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I think that Nissan had painted themselves into a corner. The record setting R33 was certainly running extra boost and if my memory serves special tyres. Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.

I guess if they did the same to the R34 to get a better time it would have too much focus and perhaps too many questions asked.
Aki Itoh has taken some photos of the car that set the record. The muffler looks similar to stock but it's obvious from the photos it has a 3 inch exhaust or so. There's also extra oil coolers and a 300 kph speedo.

I think given how non-standard the car is it wouldn't be a far leap to guess that they cranked the boost to 1.2 bar on those fragile ceramic turbos and put the grippiest street legal tires they could find on it. And race spec brake pads/fluid. I'm honestly a little skeptical that the suspension is actually stock on it.

The R34's target time was 10 seconds faster than the R33. I suspect it came close but also needed similar modifications to do it, which is probably why they didn't announce a time.

I think the Japanese were much more cavalier about tuning up press cars in those days than they are now. Best Motoring tends to show this, the car at release is seemingly incredibly quick but in practice a few years down the line the performance at Tsukuba tended to be a second or two worse in time attack.
 

·
Real men use a H-Pattern.
Joined
·
12,027 Posts
Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.
I have spoken to Dirk about it a few times and interviewed him for the old GTROC magazine.


The muffler looks similar to stock but it's obvious from the photos it has a 3 inch exhaust or so. There's also extra oil coolers and a 300 kph speedo.

I think given how non-standard the car is it wouldn't be a far leap to guess that they cranked the boost to 1.2 bar on those fragile ceramic turbos and put the grippiest street legal tires they could find on it. And race spec brake pads/fluid. I'm honestly a little skeptical that the suspension is actually stock on it.
Said it many times, it's rather moot. Best motoring did an 8:01 in a stock car, only 2 seconds slower than Dirk.
The guesstimate list of modifications and boost gets larger every time a thread like this pops up.


The R34's target time was 10 seconds faster than the R33. I suspect it came close but also needed similar modifications to do it, which is probably why they didn't announce a time.
It's got less to do with the 33 and more to do with 996 GT3 which was comfortably in the 7:40s. The GT-Rs raison d'etre was to 'out-Porsche Porsche'. 34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I dont like how the R35 looks. But shure id like to have one, given its tuned beyond 1500hp. It is for shure one of the most capable platforms for super performance. Unbeatable for the money i think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Said it many times, it's rather moot. Best motoring did an 8:01 in a stock car, only 2 seconds slower than Dirk.
The guesstimate list of modifications and boost gets larger every time a thread like this pops up.
At the very least we have visual confirmation of a different exhaust and oil cooler. I am a little doubtful that the Best Motoring R33 was actually stock. You can see from the video alone that it has the 300 kph speedo.

It's got less to do with the 33 and more to do with 996 GT3 which was comfortably in the 7:40s. The GT-Rs raison d'etre was to 'out-Porsche Porsche'. 34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded.
The 996 Turbo and GT3 are all reported in the 7:50 range and the 997 Turbo/GT3 in the 7:40 range. I don't think the GT-R has ever been a serious competitor to the 911 GT3, the drivetrain choices + tuning of the car in general has always suggested that the 911 Turbo is the more accurate comparison point.

The 996 Turbo was a clearly superior car stock to stock, the R34 needed the "R1" package from Nismo to really come close.
 

·
Real men use a H-Pattern.
Joined
·
12,027 Posts
You can see from the video alone that it has the 300 kph speedo.
Of course. It would hit the stopper most of the way around the Nordschleife otherwise.

All that matters is
moleman said:
34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded
which is likely why no official time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Of course. It would hit the stopper most of the way around the Nordschleife otherwise.
The reason why I mention it is because I have not seen that 300 kph speedo anywhere else. Which makes me think they actually used the same car that Schoysman did.

I don't think anyone is running a stock car at this point, it's likely that just a few relatively light modifications would make an R33 capable of running the time that it did but it's important I think to set the scale appropriately.

All that matters is which is likely why no official time.
Fair enough, the R34 is still undoubtedly the fastest of the 3 second generation GT-Rs though. I'm personally not that interested in the R34 but I think we should be honest when we discuss these things. The extra rigidity, improved aero, and 6 speed help significantly. Is it worth double what the R33s are going for? I think that's a personal question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Er, the 300km speedo was fitted to the V-Spec II's from factory.
The Nismo variant my V-Spec (NOT II) has is 320kph and was installed as a factory option instead of the factory 180kph speedo.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out there. :)
The 34 was NOT the fastest RB GT-R - the 33 was more aerodynamic as I've previously stated and didn't have its time recorded because it was allegedly slower than the 33.

The 34 is more rigid compared to the 33 BUT this is true from the 32 to 33 as well, with reported figures stating that the 33 is 100% more rigid than the 32.
In fact, the biggest advantage the 34 did have was in the gearbox department as the six speed allow you to better control rpm through cornering.

All up this is an argument that boils down to personal taste - to me I love my 34 and will happily say that whilst it's not as fast as a lot of 35's out there, it still makes me smile when i see it and drive it and that can't happen with it's younger but fuglier, fatter little brother. ;)

PS: I hate the roofline of the R35 and literally nothing seems to fix it. Not even the fancy R50 concept helps it out.
 
41 - 60 of 85 Posts
Top