Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Summary:

smallDSCF2414.JPG

VS

Mysilvia.JPG

Long version:

Hey guys, i attended my first street sprint as a spectator the other day and it made me keener than ever to become involved. I'd like to start doing some street sprints, hillclimbs and track days, and am trying to decide which car would best suit my needs between an R32 GTR and a silvia/180sx. I know the GTR is probably a better car over all, but it really comes down to bang for buck because for the price of a stockish GTR i could have a highly modded silvia.

I've just imported a GTR with the following mods:

Nissan R32 GTR

R34 GTR ball bearing turbos

Nismo heavy duty clutch (twin plate?)

Blitz 17" rims

Top Secret front brake pads, Project 2 rears

Invidia cat-back exhaust

Aftermarket front pipes

Carbon fibre vented bonnet

Carbon fibre vented guards

Carbon fibre doors

Carbon fibre Nismo rear lip

Cusco half roll cage

Driver's harness

Nismo front strut brace

If i was to keep the GTR i would probably only be able to afford to do:

Hicas lock kit

Oil cooler

Aftermarket struts/coilovers

Sell the CF panels and get a respray

Now compare that to my old silvia for around the same money (which i would buy back in a heartbeat if i could) which had too many mods to list, but basically:

Engine work to around 240rwkw

Lots of cooling mods

Extensive lightening

17x9.5" lightweight rims all round

Coilovers, chassis bracing, all adjustable suspension arms, sway bars, strut bars

Bucket seat, guages, wheel, etc

R32 GTR brakes, 5 stud

So overall a GTR may be a better car, but for the money you can buy a mean silvia. My old silvia was very light and i doubt i will ever find another Nissan that handled the way it did so even though i've now got a GTR i was thinking it might be a better car for sprints which have a lot of tight corners (eg. Gatton Sprints is 1km with 4 corners and 3 tight chicanes). I'm not poor but i don't have buckets of money to throw at the car either so it would also be a lot cheaper to mod and repair, and i have a lot more knowledge of silvias. The car won't be daily driven, but the GTR would be much more street legal.

What do people think?

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

it's a tough one. but if you flog the bonnet on the gtr let me know! lol

i would say go the GTR. but in reality the silvia will probably be cheaper to use. as it's lighter it wont be as hard on brakes and tyres, plus smaller cheaper engine. also cheaper body parts if you bend it.

if you know and like silvias then it will probably be the best choice for you.

The number one ingredient for cheap motorsport is a light weight car. By that I mean as close to 1000kg as possible. The reason is pretty straight forward as weight increases so does the consumption of fuel/tyres/brakes. My GT-R is pretty heavy on all three. So a Silvia should be a substantially cheaper option for track work. Having said that it takes a fairly well sorted Silvia to get near a stock GT-R.

It may also pay to look at the results from previous events in your area. As often as not someone will be pedalling a near stock GT-R, although Silvias/180's are less common. That should give you an idea of the relative competitiveness of the cars in you events. Ofcourse you have to factor in driver ability/application as not all people who enter their cars drive them at ten tenths.

A gtr is brilliant for sprints etc a great alrounder.

But....if its your only road car, yuo need to plan for the possibility (probability?) you will blow the motor - then you have a big bill and no road car.

Personally I reckon the best idea for a club car would be an r32gtst with an rb30 in it. Under $10k, can drive to the track and back but doesnt have to be your only road car. And nice and light and all the skyline bits fit.

Thanks guys, its good to hear relatively unbiased opinions on a car specific forum.

I've got a little Micra for a daily and other weekend cars so impracticality doesn't really worry me. The weight of a GTR really puts me off, when the silvia makes 240rwkw and weights 1050kg and the GTR puts out the same power but is 400kg heavier. Replacing or rebuilding an engine is much cheaper too, and gearboxes are cheaper to buy and easier to replace.

I'd be really interested to know or see examples of how track times vary between the 2, on longer and sprint circuits.

Edited by neil_se

Hi Neil,

if you want to see what a relatively stock GTR can do at a hillclimb, come along to Mt Cotton on the 26th. Gramzow Rd, Mt Cotton. You will see it in the UBD as "MG Car Club". Basically next door to MT Cotton Driver Training Centre.

Mine has standard turbos, standard boost, 3.75" exhaust, Mines ECU, Buddy Club coilovers and adj castor rods. My old 2L 1200 coupe ran a best of 48.37, so I'm hoping for at least 2 sec quicker in the GTR. It was good enough for 3rd outright at Bathurst's Mountain Straight Hillclimb. And there were some BIG power rwd sport sedans there. A decent near standard GTR is a pretty good bit of gear that really doesn't need too much done to it to be very fast on the track.

My opinion on the tyres/brakes/fuel costs for hillclimbs and sprints are that the difference will be negligable. tyre wear and brakes are not really concerns for such short events. A set of tyres will easily last 2 years.

As for which would be faster at street sprints out of those two cars. Over such a short distance like gatton, a silvia is gonna have to work awful hard to make up the start line advantage of the GTR. Same goes for any short, standing start event.

You have a GTR, get out there and have a go. If you want, you can always sell later, but I suspect you'll love hillclimbing and sprinting it.

Harry

I'm not sure, only just got it. Considering that the GTR already has aluminium bonnet and guards they should take about 70kg off the total weight. Doors are about 4kg and cost $4500 new, each!

Edited by neil_se
I'd be really interested to know or see examples of how track times vary between the 2, on longer and sprint circuits.

The GTR is no doubt the better car, and has more potential. That said, a basic R33 GTR with sorted suspension, Pfc, exhaust and filters but std turbos with about 255-260rwkws and an R32 GTST with std rngine but upgraded turbo makign 230rwkws, suspension upgrade with the same size brakes as the R33 GTR...at the moment im 1.8seconds slower around Sandown. That was a single spinner diff that meant i could only run 1bar (215rwkws), and even then traction wasnt great until midway through 3rd. Up to that day i had never had a problem with traction...the last two years i have not had a sprint day where the tune, brakes, electricals etc etc all played fair.

The GTR owner feels he still has a second in his car at the track, peicing together the sector times from my data logger, even with the dead diff i know i could lap within 0.4 seconds of the times the GTR actually set.

So its all guessing, and perhaps a stretch comparing the GTST to a Silvia?!??!

Over 5 lapsthe GTR would no doubt be several seconds quicker as its no much nicer to drive and wot stress tyres as much...but its a sprint soyou only need 1 goos timed lap :D

GTRs are always quicker as they have the more mods/power....but the few GTST that i have seen with decent mods and tyres and driven well have no problem kreepign up with GTRs, namely cars like AVO R33 GTST. SO Silvia being lighter again...and having seen some quick examples around Wakefield...i see no reason why provided it has over 220rwkws cant be a very quick car that keeps pace with a well modifed GTR that still runs std turbos. If the GTR has modded turbos and is makign 330rwkws+, then the Silvia struggles to keep pace with that sort of power

...LOL, thats about $1.20 worth :kiss:

I recon they'd do similar times around the track....

Difference is the 180 is already modded and you can't do much more to it, the GTR is still mostly stock, so you could go faster if you wanted to in the GTR :D

Yes, but i don't really want to start upgrading turbos, injectors, etc on the GTR as its just an endless money pit. It'd be a little while before i could even put coilovers into the GTR, whereas the Silvia would already be fully sorted. But i spose that's also being a bit greedy and wanting it all now, not looking at the future potential of each. Traction was a bit of a problem in my Silvia, but i think with some slightly softer suspension and decent tread it'd be better. I'm still yet to take my GTR for a good drive to see how it handles, maybe i'll end up liking it.

Edited by neil_se
Thanks Harry, i'd already planned on heading to the Mt Cotton Hillclimb so i can't wait to see how various cars go on the course.

cool. might see you at the hill then. make sure you come and say hi if you make it there.

It's not just about power, the GTR has a well wicked suspension setup that can be tweaked to fly. I'm not sure about the 180's...

On the track you probably don't want softer suspension....

we can speculate all we like on here, only one way to find out take them both to the track >_< I still think there wouldn't be much in it either way, and the GTR has a lot more potential, so I'd stick with the GTR, but up to you.

Have you tried looking at some times of modded 180's around a track and stockish GTR's around the same track?

im going to disagree with everyone

a well driven silvia with grunt 280rwkw will hammer a slimilarly powered gtr because its lighter

i find the average joe just comes to the inpression that the gtr is better cause every tool can jump in it a gtr and go fast.. when said tool jumps in a silvia or a gtst with similar power their lap time turn to shit cause they suddenly realise how good the gtr was making them look around the track(and they suddleny have to learn throttle control and im most silvia cases how to brake without abs)

for the money go the silvia for all out performance buck for buck

thats should stir up you gtr drivers

especially beer barron who only owns a gtr to play with the stick in the middle(between his legs)

ps if its rainging gtr wins no questions asked

The reason i said softer suspension was because my old silvia had 14/8 spring rates and it made it very difficult to get any power to the ground, it'd just light the tyres up when it hit boost in 1st, 2nd or 3rd. I've tried looking at lap times of a few courses but i'm yet to find a list that's got both a GTR and s13 on it. I'm sure the GTR would have the upper hand if i had money to spend on things like adjustable suspension arms, N1 turbos, injectors, brake upgrade, etc but i told myself i wouldn't spend that kind of money on a 32 because i'd rather buy an EVO7 or something for the same $$.

I'll have to head to some track days and compare times of drivers. There's a Nissan vs Honda track day on the 24th of this month with a variety of stock and modded silvias and GTRs, with both experienced and novice drivers so it'll be a good test.

There are an enormous number of variables that dictate relative lap times - power to weight being only one. Track layout is one of the most important as a car that is quicker on one circuit may be slower on another (say tighter) circuit...

To give you some sort of indication my R32 R has 300rwhp, but I have spent money on tyres & suspension. I usually manage about 14th in a field of anything from 60 to 100 fellow competitors at Wanneroo and can cover most of the GT-R's that turn up. I need another half a second to crack the top ten, but after that it gets very very hard & expensive as the really fast blokes are running another 2 to 2.5 seconds quicker.

I suppose the point that I am trying to make is this: Do you want to win or do you want to have fun? I assume it is the latter and if that is the case either car will do but a GT-R can be kept closer to standard spec for a similar lap time. Conversly an R13 will be a cheaper vehicle to compete in on a regular basis.

To answer fatz inflamatory post - please don't be a tool. Motorsport at this level is about having a go & having fun. The biggest problem is "The fastest car is always in the car park/workshop/being built/having an off day/blah blah blah" Those that get out there and have a go should be encouraged, not slagged off. And by the way GT-R's are not easy to drive as you put it - they take the same amount of concentration, thought, planning & balls to get a optimum lap time out of - same as any car does.

post-5134-1141872215.jpg

post-5134-1141872907.jpg

Edited by djr81

If you go the GTR option you are going to at some stage have to factor in the cost of a modded sump.

I ran around for ages with an Accusump which I was using as a band-aid measure until I needed to take out the engine. After a couple of unfortunate blow-ups I now have resorted to a full race sump.

GTR's are great on the track but as you said, they become a money pit if you continue to drive them hard on track. The harder you want to drive it, the deeper your pockets have to become.

a few years back Darren Appleton was competing in the QLD Super Sprint Series in his black 180SX. This car had pretty much everything - no expense spared. It was very fast and running on slicks. One round he was unable to bring the 180 and used his R32 GTR road car instead. Basically stock but with coilover suspension. He used the 180's slicks. Times were within a couple of sec over 4 laps IIRC. It was very close to the full house 180's times.

for short standing start events, like hillclimbs and street sprints such as Gatton. The GTR will have a huge advantage off the start line and traction out of corners on cold rubber.

personally, and I have raced rwd cars very competitively for years, I think the R32 GTR drives very much like a rwd car. the only difference is that when you get sideways, you're still accellerating damn hard at the same time. They also feel very nimble, direct, and responsive. They really drive like a much lighter car.

either one will be alot of fun and can be very competitive. but you've got the GTR - use it! or sell it to me - it looks the business

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

    • Nah, if I need to fit people in a car I'll just use the Mrs car, the MX5 is perfect for what I need as a fun little sports car for fun on the street As for getting in and out of the MX5, I have no issues as I am a short arse who does lots of mobility training 🥷 If anything, I have been looking at Daihatsu Hi-Jets for a work hack, I helped one of my mates move some stuff with one recently that he picked up from Just Jap, it was a little ripper and plenty big enough for what we needed, it would also be super handy for me as I do alot of gardening, and plan on having some veggie patches and native gardens in the place I buy next year when I retire I did alot landscape gardening and growing veggies prior to my current job, and loved it, and that is a hobby that can keep me sane in my retirement, and as such, the little 300kg load capacity would be more than enough for what I need it to move around I have been looking at utes for just this purpose for a while now, and a near new 2024 Hi-Jet can be had for under $30k And I would rather look at a quirky little Hi-Jet than pretty much any other little ute, well, apart from a Brumby, I love the little Brumby, and weirdly have never owned one yet I was going to buy a heap of raffle tickets to try and win the Brumby that MCM built for Subaru Australia, but sadly I totally missed the raffle, I even filled in some form to be told when the raffle started so I could buy tickets, but to my dismay I was never contacted and found out I missed it when I was randomly googling Brumbys last year... #conspiracy  Maybe I should just buy a Brumby for a little "work hack".....LOL I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure
    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 😁
×
×
  • Create New...