Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, drunken0elf said:

Cause it's really round and looks huge even if it isn't.

the early model r33 are ugly. The series 2 are quite nice in my opinion.

BUT....if compared to the R34 GTT, damn, the R34 takes the cake for shit looks. It is freaken hideous. 

14 hours ago, drunken0elf said:

Cause it's really round and looks huge even if it isn't.

 

The R33 was really huge - which they belatedly realised and so they made the R34 75mm shorter.

Funnily enough....when I look at all three of them the R32 and the R34 look dated, the R32 looks old, the R34 looks brash and angular reminiscent of the '90's wedge shape .  They are both like a concept design that never really went anywhere.  The R33 gets by exactly because of its less aggressive more rounded style, it will never lose that appeal.

  • Like 1

To each there own.

The r32 gtst and gtr looks nice be it sedan or coupe. 

The r33 needs to be a s2 revision to be nice. Be it sedan or coupe. It looks like a long car and i like that. Kinda like toyota long GT cars like the soarer. The r33 GTR looks really nice.

The r34 sedan looks like trash. GTT coupe and GTR are boxy and good looking.  

Lets not talk about the other base models, they trash in my eyes. I dont see why someone would pay the skyline tax or crappy non turbo skyline models. I live in canada so import fees might be considerably more then yall in Australia tho. Only non turbo thats ok in my books is the non turbo r34 that looks like a GTT. Prime candidate for an engine swap.

  • Like 1
16 hours ago, KiwiRS4T said:

The R33 was really huge - which they belatedly realised and so they made the R34 75mm shorter.

And yet 217 thousand were sold and r34 less then 13 thousand, numbers speak for them selves, r34 not popular so not very liked

  • Like 1
10 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

I must say, I am still constantly surprised that there are people who think the R33 looks the best. I didn't think there was anyone who actually liked them.

I have had compliments for my R33 GTR much more times then I have for my R34 GTR. I like both, but the R33 in my opinion has more presence and a more menacing stance whereas the R34 GTR is more elegant. 

  • Like 1
6 hours ago, FedBpy2018 said:

And yet 217 thousand were sold and r34 less then 13 thousand, numbers speak for them selves, r34 not popular so not very liked

...?

There was 180766 R33s built (16674 GT-R) and 67211 R34s built (11577 GT-R).

Anyway the Japanese economy was significantly changing from the 80s to the 2000s. Simply saying there was less built therefore not very liked just isn't true as there are many other factors.

Edited by sin-
  • Like 1
I have had compliments for my R33 GTR much more times then I have for my R34 GTR. I like both, but the R33 in my opinion has more presence and a more menacing stance whereas the R34 GTR is more elegant. 
I beleive we all have to drink now you've mentioned it again... [emoji16][emoji23][emoji23]
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Robocop, you have hit the nail on the head yet again.... completely agree that the R33 is the true crowdpleaser.

Everyone seems to forget the R35 wheelbase is longer than the rest and that thing just hauls ass for such a heavy car. All this nonsense about the 33's wheelbase, NO, thats one of the reason that its faster than the rest!!

  • Like 1
3 hours ago, BakemonoRicer said:

Robocop, you have hit the nail on the head yet again.... completely agree that the R33 is the true crowdpleaser.

Everyone seems to forget the R35 wheelbase is longer than the rest and that thing just hauls ass for such a heavy car. All this nonsense about the 33's wheelbase, NO, thats one of the reason that its faster than the rest!!

You spot on!!! ???

  • Like 1
20 hours ago, sin- said:

...?

There was 180766 R33s built (16674 GT-R) and 67211 R34s built (11577 GT-R).

Anyway the Japanese economy was significantly changing from the 80s to the 2000s. Simply saying there was less built therefore not very liked just isn't true as there are many other factors.

R33:  Production: 1993–1998; 217,133 units sold

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

    • No intention of driving the car the way it's set up now, just wanting to make sure I haven't made any mistakes along the way so that the tune can go smoothly, I don't want to waste anyone's time with stupid issues. And of course I intend to get it towed to the dyno in a completed state 😅 I have the base fuel pressure with the vacuum disconnected set at about 40psi, which I believe is at least relatively close to stock fuel pressure, maybe I'll have a fiddle with the reg and see what happens. For all I know I could be wasting my time with this and I should just plumb it in and see what the tuner reckons. I just find it a bit strange that it seems to be under so much load just free revving, but maybe that's just a result of the turbo slowing down the exhaust gasses and making a restriction in the flow, with no boost to compensate.
    • The boy just hit up google translate and it worked a treat, he said step one was "please urinate with precision and elegance", he then sent me the correct translation  I get some new loctite for the small fixtures tomorrow and get some "dort" going after that 🤣
    • Right, so is the fuel pressure the same as it was previously? If not, well, it's not going to work well. I can understand the theory I assume you are going for, which is: "Run it N/A, and if I have the original AFM, and same amount of fuel and intake air as previously, the fact there's a turbo in my exhaust should still make it run" Which it... might? Provided you don't actually change how much air or fuel is going into the car.. or getting out. But if you have changed that, all bets are off. What is the purpose to even have the car run this way? To get it to a tuner? And if the goal is to limp it to a tuner, you're still going to what - plumb up a whole intercooler system and new intake in the parking lot out front before your tune......?
    • Haha yea it's a bit of a weird setup at the moment, just wanted to make sure I sorted out any headaches before dyno day. At the moment I've changed the exhaust manifold, turbo and downpipe, 460lph fuel pump and rising rate reg as well as the previously mentioned headstuds and gasket. The nistune was already mapped for the car as it was and drove around for a few months no worries. The plan is to run flex fuel hence the big pump, which I've wired direct to the battery through a relay to avoid voltage issues.
    • Um. Was the ECU the same as the one previously there? I know R33's needed R32 GTST ECU's or other tomfoolery to run Nistune. This is such a wild setup. Most people would plumb in the turbo then not drive the car (i.e tow it to a tuner). What's actually changed since it last ran?
×
×
  • Create New...