Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah, it really depends on what your budget is. they are different in terms of their handling and everything. so it really depends. i like the R33 better but i have to say they are not as tough as R32s.

yeah not as quick but still bloody quick would the 33 b more reliable 4 around 30-35 g

Essentially pick which model you would prefer than buy the best condition example you can afford, personlly I prefer the shape of the 32 over the 33 and with the current costs they are more bang for buck. They do not have any inherent weaknesses, things such as gear boxs are strong, but GTR's are extremely expensive to fix hence why I said buy the best condition one you can afford.

32, better looking, and arguably better performance opportunity due to light weight and yeh, plus its just wayy nicer and cheaper too ! ;)

i thought all the GTR's weighed the same.... or was the r32 1.4 tonne and r33 1.6

32's are lighter but thier chasis was also not as stiff as the 33, plus the extra years would of made it softer again. I'd go for the newest GTR you can afford (year wise) 98 R33's are around 40-45k.. 95 ones around 35k.. then R32's start around 30k, down to the old 89 models you can pick up for 20k.

My vote is for an R33 GTR. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't love to have an R32 GTR but they are getting a little old and maintenance and repairs cannot be done at VL commodore prices. The R33 is a newer, better engineered car plus they are sexy as hell.

To me the R32 GTR was always the one to have.....to my eye's R33's look like camry's (R33 guys please note I said 'to MY eyes' before you get upset :) ). It's the same as the 240Z vs 260Z argument.....R32 was the 'first' and a bit special for that reason, but R33 is probably more refined.

As to the cost of parts, etc for R32, for the most part it's no different to r33 with the exception of stuff unique to R32 (trim, etc), but mechanicaly they are very similar. That said, given what I've seen some of you guys pay for work on your cars, well......I'm in the wrong business.....

did u have any problems with ur 32 any common 1s u know of

my only problem in 2 years is that 1 of the coil packs has gone on me.

But remember, you get what you paid for... i paid top dollar when i got my car and got a prime example but i know people who bought cheaper examples and had to replace engines, turbos, paint, rust etc etc.

Don't think you can skimp on the buy... it'll bite you in the arse. Even spend a little extra on inspections before you buy so you know exactly what you're in for.

It all depends on your budget/preference.

If you get an R32, like everyone has said, get one in good condition overall, my guess would say around the 25k mark for no dramas.

That said you can get cheap ones for 20k, but it'll hurt when it needs a full rebuild etc.

R33 GTR.......you'd have to spend at least 35k for a decent once.

So it comes down to budget and preference. IMO it's not worth spending another 10k for what is essentially the same car, if you can find an R32 in very good condition.

Personally, I don't like the R33 shape, so I went for the 32.

Although the 33s have much nice interiors and will have less wear and tear.

R33 vs R32 debate is all opinion based. Buy which one you like more! There is no wrong decision here!

R33's ATTESSA system seems to feed more power to the front wheels than the R32's, giving it less oversteer and potentially faster out of the corners. The more rear-wheel-drive-like handling and less weight makes the R32 feel more chuckable than the R33. The R32 would be likely quicker (just) in a straight line due to less weight for the same power. R33 would be more comfortable and more refined due to the larger size and modern erganomics. R32 arguably looks tougher than the R33. R33 would probably be slightly better for back seat passengers. R32 is much cheaper. R33 is much newer (and therefore potentially cheaper to run due to less things breaking from old age). R33 would be safer in a crash due to stiffer chassis and airbags.

Either car would make any performance enthusiast very happy!

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...