Patto- Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Its not unheard of. Case in point - The current Holden Barina is inferior to the model it replaces, as Holden have obviously decided a lower priced/lower quality car will better suit the marketplace. This doesn't apply, as Holden sources these cars from other GM brands, it doesn't desgin and build them itself like Nissan Japan did with the Skyline. Holden decided to switch from the European "Opel Corsa", to the cheaper Korean "Daewoo Kalos", while keeping the Barina name. Nissan obviously didn't do this. It was not a comparison, I was answering his question but I guess you missed that bit. Maybe, but it doesn't relate to this argument though does it? So its not relevant. Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3105623 Share on other sites More sharing options...
r32line Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) This doesn't apply, as Holden sources these cars from other GM brands, it doesn't desgin and build them itself like Nissan Japan did with the Skyline. Holden decided to switch from the European "Opel Corsa", to the cheaper Korean "Daewoo Kalos", while keeping the Barina name. Nissan obviously didn't do this.Maybe, but it doesn't relate to this argument though does it? So its not relevant. Seriouly, I BEG that you read before you post things like this. Smurf said: Why would a car manufacture release a new model that isnt superior to the previous model? Holden, have "released" their "new model" barina and it is NOT superior to the "previous model" He asked a question and I answered it.... And then you tell me it does not relate to the argument.... I WAS ANSWERING HIS QUESTION...... PLEASE FFS don't make me say it again! I know that the new barina is sourced from Daewoo but it is still the car Holden have released as the NEW barina! Edited May 9, 2007 by r32line Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107149 Share on other sites More sharing options...
_8OO5TED_ Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 in my opinion, a R33 puts power to the ground ALOT better than a tail happy, tyre frying R32 does. The R33 feels like a much more stable car and when lightly modified, is still a comfortable off boost daily driver. THe R32 is like a go kart, actually similar to a S13! Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107229 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yme33 Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) I just picked up my R33 gtst, and after been in mates cars not actually driving them i can notice a diff that the R33 is much smoother in my opinion, a R33 puts power to the ground ALOT better than a tail happy, tyre frying R32 does. The R33 feels like a much more stable car and when lightly modified, is still a comfortable off boost daily driver. THe R32 is like a go kart, actually similar to a S13! couldn't agree any better there about boost their like a normal car .. IMHO.. Edited May 9, 2007 by Yme33 Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3107299 Share on other sites More sharing options...
salad Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 (edited) Hahaha, i dont agree with that statement at all. You cannot apply rules like 16% more power but only 6% more weight means its faster... I know the R33 is quicker (in a straight line) but just because one cars power to weight ratio is better than another cars it does not mean that car is going to be faster. How a car puts its power down introduces countless other variables....Tyres, AWD vs RWD vs FWD, Traction control system, launch control.... I wont bother continuing I did say 'simplistically'. As for how the cars get their power down, I thought we were comparing GTS-t with GTS25-t? Both RWD without traction control/launch control. Both have VERY similar rear suspension (geometry, spring rates etc). We were comparing stock for stock, but I doubt anyone has stock tyres anymore, so we'll just assume same tyres for both, both have same sized rims so that shouldn't be a problem. Both have R200 VLSDs, so they'd both get the power down the same way there. Both have very similar gearbox ratios too. The difference is the R32 has a ~5% shorter diff ratio (4.363 vs 4.083 from memory) which would increase acceleration compared to the R33. But R33 has more torque at the engine to start with, so it's negated, leaving the R33 faster. I realise you can't use power to weight all the time, but these 2 cars are VERY similar, so in this case, you can and it does work. The R33 IS faster in a straight line. Edited May 11, 2007 by salad Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3110390 Share on other sites More sharing options...
G3TFKD Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 LOL put an RB25 into an R32 then you get the power in a much nicer looking car. sorry just had to say it Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3111668 Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotRICE? Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 LOLput an RB25 into an R32 then you get the power in a much nicer looking car. sorry just had to say it But then this whole discussion would prove pointless Coming from a Honda background.. people always go on about Hondas being gay because they are small,light and reasonably qucik. My ITR, was just on 1000kg. Has a tiny 1800cc NA motor and would do 13.8 @ 100mph all day. Then you get the people in their bigger Turbo cars saying things like " Well if my ****** was that light it would be 10x qucker than that shit ass Honda..." Is it me or is it just them trying to make their penises look bigger? *shrugs* Kinda went off track. My bad.. continue (would like to add im am currently in the market for an R33.. so im not a Steriotypical Honda driver ) Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3138583 Share on other sites More sharing options...
G3TFKD Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 LOL Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3138587 Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarface Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 32's shit 33 is better Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144676 Share on other sites More sharing options...
32line Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 33's shit 32 is better. Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144811 Share on other sites More sharing options...
KURAUN Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 33's shit 32 is better Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144816 Share on other sites More sharing options...
spin_psycle Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 33's shit 32 is better Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144865 Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarface Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 32 is too slowwwww Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144883 Share on other sites More sharing options...
typevu Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 33 is too slowwwww Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144909 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ztuned Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 32 are shit , 33 are better coz r32 toooooooo slow and this comes from a 32 driver Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144949 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawn Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Is this a wasteland thread? Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144976 Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBR33 Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Isnt it interesting how the 32 owners think the 33 is shit and the 33 owners think the 32 is shit Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144991 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ztuned Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 ^^did u read my post? im a r32 driver and i said r33's are better than r32's Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3144994 Share on other sites More sharing options...
FineLine Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 Why nissan even bothered to make a 6 cylinder 2 litre engine is beyond me. It just added unnecessary weight to the 32. They already had some brilliant 2 litre engines laying around and should have used one of them. As for looks, Every time i see a 32 I look for a backward baseball cap in the near vicinity or in the car itself. The 33 is far more classic coupe design and will be the most timeless of all of them in the long run including the 34. (guess which one I drive) Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3145039 Share on other sites More sharing options...
r32line Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 ^^did u read my post?im a r32 driver and i said r33's are better than r32's Interesting given your avatar and signature have pics of only 33's. So Im betting that you are a 33 owner too. Your 33 must be faster so its fully more hectic...... Link to comment https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167183-33-vs-32/page/2/#findComment-3145152 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now