Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Stock GTRs aren't very fast by today's standards...

206kw just isn't much power these days, not when a stock 6 cyl falcon makes 190kw and even a Hyundai Grandeur can muster up 194kw. A 10-15kw advantage isn't going to feel like a huge improvement, even considering the weight difference

You are correct to say 206 kw is not much power but who said they have 206 kw in stock form ?

If you think you can keep up with a GTR in your 190kw Falcon ( even the 260kw 5.4 V8, or 4.0ltXR6 turbo) or 194kw Grandeur you are totaly mistaken . Obviously you have never driven a GTR, but dont take my word for it, just go to WID on any wednesday night and you will see .

You are correct to say 206 kw is not much power but who said they have 206 kw in stock form ?

If you think you can keep up with a GTR in your 190kw Falcon ( even the 260kw 5.4 V8, or 4.0ltXR6 turbo) or 194kw Grandeur you are totaly mistaken . Obviously you have never driven a GTR, but dont take my word for it, just go to WID on any wednesday night and you will see .

lol so true.

It's just not power that determines which car is quicker.....there are soooo many factors.

this is very interesting to me as i have just 'downgraded' haha

from an R33 gts-t, to an R32 gts-4

i wasnt legally allowed to drive the r33 gts-t due to power restirctions in my state, however i have found that the gts-4 is still pretty zippy... it doesnt put me in my seat like my r33 used to... but handling is fantastic, i can now take corners at speeds that i would have totally spun out at in the R33 gts-t

i'll agree with shan in that the awd gear is fairly laggy, and same with the power delivery, but i spose thats what happens when you downgrade from a 2.5L to a 2L

I dont agree with this, i have a 34 gtr and until last november i had an 02 sti as well and i can assure you bog stock gtr will eat the sti everywhere . It may surprise you to know that the sti may have it on the gtr in the braking by a very small margin.

Remember you only need slight mods to get the gtr to run 11 second 1/4 mile, to that in the sti you need heaps of mods

Yeh but we are talking R32 GTRs, sure as hell not comparing it to a 4-6 yr old R34 GTR. An EVO 8 or 2004 STI would be generally a quicker, and better built/condition car then most R32 GTRs getting around.

As for traction in the wet...no doubt...but your mad if you are punting your car hard on the street, then its protracted suicide to be racing in the wet...by all means, its your car, do what floats your boat. If you are goign to mod them for 300+rwkws sure they will be quick...but for christs sake its a street car...where can you serisouly even stretch oits legs in 2nd gear.

But the 4WD is a great attribute, and they are great cars...but for every 2 good examples there is a GTR ready to dump its gearbox, spin a bearing, need suspension overhaul etc. Its not a fault of the car, its the age.

Me, i would love to have the money to buya GTR and have the sufficient cash to replace the things that need replacing, but the 9 month wait and long list of thing that i need to replace with what little cash i have makes them expensive cars...

They are great cars, but there are less then great examples, just be sure the won you jockey is the former :mad:

ill correct ya a lil bit there karl, it does make a differece if you are cornering fast with the front wheels engaging!!! as ya may feel the back start to let go but the front digs in the claws and ya in for a ride!!

ya right about the wet, u remember when i was fishing down that raod....i am very happy that i didnt have a rear wheel drive that night as i would have lost it no doubt!!

the fact about a 190kw falcon...no way ya can compare it to a gtr, even if it has 15kw's less power, doesnt mean a thing.

its not how powerfull the car is its how it puts it to the ground and the gtr does that very well indeed!! example. r34 gtr(206kw) vs. hsv gts(300kw)(in a old wheels mag) the gtr absolutly made a mess of the gts.

i luv driving mine!! its awsome

Edited by Turbz_13
You are correct to say 206 kw is not much power but who said they have 206 kw in stock form ?

If you think you can keep up with a GTR in your 190kw Falcon ( even the 260kw 5.4 V8, or 4.0ltXR6 turbo) or 194kw Grandeur you are totaly mistaken . Obviously you have never driven a GTR, but dont take my word for it, just go to WID on any wednesday night and you will see .

What he said.

The traction you get with any gtr when you fill-up those huge wheel arches with good rubber plus 4WD, it's no contest especially in the wet.

And since when did a R32 GTR only have 206Kw? That figure was simply what manufactures agreed to limit their cars to. Let me asure you, there's more. Do the usual mods, intake, exhaust, and you have 200 plus Kw at the wheels. Hang on, but there should only be 206kw at the flywheel? That's a big power increase for such simple mods don't you think?

With four wheel drive, a super strong driveline, except clutch, a lighter body than R33 or R34, and you have the basis for a very fast car. The R32 gtr is still faster 0 to 100klm and over the quarter mile than any other gtr released acording to every road test I've seen. Not the case around a twisty track though, R34 wins hands down.

Mine has been a daily driver for the past 2 years and I can't say it's hard to drive, its GREAT to drive. A Gts4 is a good car, but you're having a lend of yourself if you think it's in the same league as the R32 GTR!

As for a Grandeur keeping up, dream on.

ill correct ya a lil bit there karl, it does make a differece if you are cornering fast with the front wheels engaging!!! as ya may feel the back start to let go but the front digs in the claws and ya in for a ride!!

ya right about the wet, u remember when i was fishing down that raod....i am very happy that i didnt have a rear wheel drive that night as i would have lost it no doubt!!

the fact about a 190kw falcon...no way ya can compare it to a gtr, even if it has 15kw's less power, doesnt mean a thing.

its not how powerfull the car is its how it puts it to the ground and the gtr does that very well indeed!! example. r34 gtr(206kw) vs. hsv gts(300kw)(in a old wheels mag) the gtr absolutly made a mess of the gts.

i luv driving mine!! its awsome

The R34 GTR has a lot more power than the 206kw that Nissan says it has and the 300kw commie has a few kw less than the specs say too.

Roy, you dont have to wait 9 months for parts for a GTR actualy you can have anuthing you need for them from your local Nissan dealer, they usualy are in stock and if they are not 1-2 weeks from japan .Generaly speaking Nissan parts are cheap if you compare them to Subaru .

Of course you cant compare a 15yo 32 to a 2-4 yo sti or evo for realibility. As for power 02 sti and 04 sti are exacly the same and they have nothing on the old 32 in stock form, actualy the 32 is a little quicker but the stis will outbrake it very easy, they even stop better than the R34.

If you are talking about a version 5 or version 6, 99 and 00 (old GC8 Jap spec cars) they are just as quick as the 32 R mainly because they are very light .

Stock GTRs aren't very fast by today's standards...

206kw just isn't much power these days, not when a stock 6 cyl falcon makes 190kw and even a Hyundai Grandeur can muster up 194kw. A 10-15kw advantage isn't going to feel like a huge improvement, even considering the weight difference

I used to always wonder this before I got a gtr....'they cant really be very fast with only 206kw. that was until some fella in a 300kw gts' wanted to have a little squirt against my stock 33r.. off the line smoked him, however he hadnt had enough so tried to get away from me on a roll...lets just say he was very disappointed.

206kw I dont think so..i would say closer to 240-250.

Edited by marchGTR
Stock GTRs aren't very fast by today's standards...

206kw just isn't much power these days, not when a stock 6 cyl falcon makes 190kw and even a Hyundai Grandeur can muster up 194kw. A 10-15kw advantage isn't going to feel like a huge improvement, even considering the weight difference

Firstly do you own one

secondly, look at the times these stock cars do down the quarter.

stock times for stock car 0-100 1/4 mile cost power

R32gtr 5.5sec 13.7sec 20k-35k 206kw

Falcon 7.8sec 15.6 sec 36k 190kw

falcon xr6t 6.2sec 14.3 sec 47k 245kw

commodore sv6 6.9sec 15.1 sec 40k 190kw

hyundai grandeur 7.2sec 15.1 sec 40k est 194kw

subaru wrx sti 5.8sec 13.8 sec 57k 206kw

mitsubishi evo 1X 5.6sec 13.8 sec 57k 206kw

nissan 350z track 6.4sec 14.3 sec 68k 221kw

mazda rx8 6.4sec 14.8sec 55k 171kw

not bad for a stock car mate! dont know what you mean by not fast for todays standard, also look at the cost for the other car's! the only thing coming close are the other imports :D

thirdly, spend a few more dollars on intercooler,exhaust,powerfc and tune to 260rwks and then

0-100 1/4mile cost power

R32gtr {or any GTR} 4.9sec 12.8sec extra 10k 350kw {or buy one with mods} 30-40k

ford fpv typhoon 5.9sec 14sec 61k 290kw

ford fpv GT-P 6.2sec 14.3sec 72k 290kw

holden GTO manaro 5.1sec 13.3sec 79k 297kw

holden coupe4 6.5sec 14.3sec 90k 270kw

spend the same on similar mods on these cars and you will reach same power figure but will still be behind the GTR and probably want have 25-60k in your back pocket

and just for good measure

porsche carrera 4.9sec 13.2sec 196k :D 239kw

porsche 996 911 turbo 4.5sec 12.7sec 323k ;) 309kw

now do you still think GTR's are still slow by todays standard lol

and by the way times and figures straight out of wheels mag!

I drive mine everyday, its got 292rwk and is driveable in every way. When I got it it it was dead stock with jap chipped stock computer and made 199rwks, a wrx sti tried me and sadly was embaressed big time.

any way people have gun, {gtr} will travel {fast} :)

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, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...