Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yep, those photos seem to turn up all over the place. Go the r34, awesome car, looks better, better technology compared to most western cars and a better investment since fords and most local cars lose there value alot quicker than imports. Only problem is parts and service, however japanese cars don't break down as much as the fords or holdens. Power can't really be compared since its 2.5ltr turbo vs a 4ltr turbo - the nissian is still just as fast though.

XR6T would absolutly hose an R34GTT 4door stock! abo bob, is your car stock or modded? did the ford guy really nail it?

I've driven the series 2 and it is awesome for a local car ;) I took it down to batemans bay and back from Canberra (via the clyde) and found it stuck to the road exceptionally for a 'big heavy car' . my only complant - the stock seats, they need to be changed to something more akin to GTR seats i.e Recaros or the like.

stopped, turned and performed very well + it was a heap of fun. I found it gave great driver feedback, but I felt I was not sitting in it, rather on it - again, the seat...

Have a look at the power they are pulling from these monsters with a modest amount of cash!

I'd have one, but I would opt for the upspec brakes and get recaros in the front.

Buy the ford :)

XR6T would absolutly hose an R34GTT 4door stock!

I agree with this DANOOH. The XR6T has better power to weight ratio. I would imagine that the 4.0L engine would allow the car to keep pulling very hard at high speed too.

Thanks for the comments everyone. I have a bit more to add to this thread now, but my descision is still not made.

I haven't compared both back to back but I have driven both now and power aside, all I can say is the Skyline looks and feels much better on the road in every aspect. The R34 GTT 4 door leaves an impression on you that it is a true "hi-performance sports car" where as the XR6T looks and feels like a "Family Sedan with stiffer suspension".

Its funny because I was finding it hard to put my finger on the differences in these cars. But it is so true what I have siad above, when you sit in the XR6T it feels like any other post 97-98 Aussie sedan, despite the obvious effort put into making the interior feel sporty. Just driving the XR6T around in stop and go traffic (believe it or not) you can really feel the weight (1664Kg) that the engine is lugging around although under hard acceleration the falcon sheds this weight like it was never there in the first place. You are then quickly reminded of the cars weight when you come to brake, its not like the standard brakes can't cope they just feel like in an extreme situation they might let you down.

The R34 GTT is no GTR but its a "real drivers car" in every sense of the words. It feels like it could out corner and out brake the XR6T in ANY situation. Yep there really is that much difference. What keeps one such as myself thinking about the XR6T is the sheer grunt the engine has and when you plant the foot the push in the back of your seat is very, very strong!

One other point is the number of GTTs getting around ATM. Today I spotted 4 XR6Ts on the way into the city, another 3 or so XR6 or XR6Ts when I was in the city. Then I saw another 4 or 5 of them on my way home. They are quite common now. On the other hand I saw no GTT's today, although I am sure they are around they are nowhere near as common.

XR6T would absolutly hose an R34GTT 4door stock! abo bob, is your car stock or modded? did the ford guy really nail it?

I've driven the series 2 and it is awesome for a local car ;) I took it down to batemans bay and back from Canberra (via the clyde) and found it stuck to the road exceptionally for a 'big heavy car' . my only complant - the stock seats, they need to be changed to something more akin to GTR seats i.e Recaros or the like.

stopped, turned and performed very well + it was a heap of fun. I found it gave great driver feedback, but I felt I was not sitting in it, rather on it - again, the seat...

Have a look at the power they are pulling from these monsters with a modest amount of cash!

I'd have one, but I would opt for the upspec brakes and get recaros in the front.

Buy the ford :)

My car was stock at the time but not anymore. He definitely nailed it but we only went up to about 100 km/h. I'm not saying there was much in it.

At the next stop he wound his window down and accused me of having mods done. I said I guessed it was all power to weight.

I notice 16xx kgs quoted above, I thought they were more like 18xx but anyway.

Stock GTT is a little bit asthmatic in the last 500 rpm before redline but I'm not sure about the fords.

One thing I noticed when my car was stock was that it seemed that I beat everyone by having an engine happy to rev out to 7000rpm. What's the fords redline?

My opinion is that i would go the r34 probably more for the fact that they are more rare and i think they look more aggressive and sportier..

Basically the xr6t seems more like a family car that been injected with some roids... however i reckon ford has finally made a falcon that looks a hell of a lot more impressive than previous falcons!! cause i do think the xr6t look alright... but no way as good as the 34.

I dont think you would regret buying either one, so like they say... follow your heart.... (and get the r34)

hehe

What's the fords redline?

On the dash it has no Redline! That was one of the wierd things I asked the dealer about, but I have since confrimed that it is normal. Regardless the XR6T starts to cut around the late 5,000 rpm mark but peak torque of 450nm is made at latest by 4,000 rpm.

so like they say... follow your heart.... (and get the r34)

yeah I am really like a pendullum at the moment!! At times the 34 really feels like the only choice (being a skyline lover through and through....) its just the falcon is hard to ignore with the specifications.

There's a lot of Falcons on the road, be they XR6, XR6T or XR8 so you're not really going to stand out. Not that that will or should influence your opinion, but still. I'd take the R34, it'd probably give you better fuel economy and stuff as well.

The XR6T is a family car trying to be a sports car.

The R34 GT-T 4 door is a sports car that fits the family :burnout:

I have a mate with an XR6T ute, goes great. Been in the shop a lot though for a new car. He had front rotors, a gearbox bearing and a problem with the tailgate closing..

do you want a car with high build quality, unique/excellent looks, high reliability, a car that integrates the driver with nice feedback OR

do you want a car that looks a little nicer than a standard falcon, has poor reliability (Mk1's), is not so integrated from a drivers perspective, but goes very fast in a straight line with more potential... in a straight line

"real drivers car" is why i went GTT

im getting an xr6t , upgrading from a r33 4door line , ive looked extensively at the 34s .

if you want to stand out get a 34 , if you want stealth get the xr6t . If you never want to be pulled over and get defected get a t .

if you want cheap insurance and parts get the t .

if you want to drift get the 34 . if you want drag get the t . if handling is your thing get the 34 , if massive power is it then get the t .

if you want a practical sedan get the t , if you want a sports car thats a bit more handy than a normal coupe get the 34

they are 1730kg in auto form , about 20-30 less in manual . they actually have fairly advanced suspension setups and handle well for a car of that size and weight but sooner or later that weight does have an impact .

sitting on the xr6t forums a fair bit theres actually not that much that goes wrong with them in the main part . the main issue is the T5 gearbox in the series I , it will never handle 450nm of tourqe well and will die with small upgrades . the auto is a better pick and can be built to handle the output of a 350rwkw upgrade for about 3k . The T56 in the series II is much better but a moded t will need a mega clutch and some strengthening still you could have got a cheaper auto and put that money strait into the gearbox . Budget about 6.5-8k for a stengthened 6 speed if you get a manual 5 speed and want to go modding . im sure it would be a lovely car though .

personally , im looking for a practical car for a growing family that I can have fun with , primarily drag . for about 8-10k there are kits to produce 350rwkw and run 12s on street tyres . looking at the HPI r34 they spent alot more than 10k to get that to run 12s .

do you want a car with high build quality, unique/excellent looks, high reliability, a car that integrates the driver with nice feedback OR

All positives here ...... hmmm......thinking answer = Yes

do you want a car that looks a little nicer than a standard falcon, has poor reliability (Mk1's), is not so integrated from a drivers perspective, but goes very fast in a straight line with more potential... in a straight line

Negatives.......Positives..........and everything in between hmmm answer = No

Skyline is looking up ;)

BTW does anyone know if an 03 XR6T is a Mk1 or series 1?

Sorry Arkon, you must have written that post super quick while I was stuffing around with my last post, because I didn't see it a minute ago? Thanks for the info mate, and yeah I have registered as a user on fordXR6Tubro.com just to use the search feature to do my research.

I agree with everything you have said basically just a couple of questions:

Just curious though have you taken a stock GTT 4 door tip-tronic for a test drive? Also do you know exact differences in Quarter mile times betwenn these cars?

1730kg in auto form

are you sure? can you point me too a reliable source on this becuase I have a spec sheet that I downloaded that said 1664kg and that was in an Auto 2003 model.

drive says 1,694kg , carpoint says 1690kg for manual series II . most of the forums seem to talk about 1700kg , so yea about 1730ish for auto the auto being 30kg heavier roughly . ford have no weight listed on their website which is strange . series I is a little lighter I think , dont know about 80kg , 1664 would sound more like a manual sI .

i have driven 1 r34 triptronic sedan , it was a very nice car . dont get me wrong I love the line and its a great car , if you want a thrashy sports car but need 4 doors now and then get the 34 . but if you want a practical sedan then the t is much better . and if you want BIG power then defietly get the T . If you want something to just do a exhaust and intercooler and a bit of boost then stick with the 34 . The T responds to those basic mods just as well but it excells in making big power in the realms that would start to get very expensive with an rb25 and to me thats when the positives start to outweight the negetives like big weight and size and plainer exterior .

I havent seen any oficial 1/4s but some owners have said 14 flats for their stock auto t's . No idea on the r34 , given the worse power to weight id expect slightly slower over the 1/4 but maybe quicker to 100km given the weight difference .

Who could say no to those R34 tail lights?

Ford's and Holden's do nothing for me in terms of looks.  

In most cases I can't distinguish Fords from one another.  XR6, XR6T, XR8 all look the same but for the badging.  

Go the Skyline!

thats the idea ! Im ripping the turbo badge off , ill even be able to park that thing in the street !

with 2 kid seats in the back no cop will ever look twice . who would expect the family falcon actually ran 12s and did 350rwkw ;)

make sure you get a blueprint blue , cause then youve got the most common colour too .

Who could say no to those R34 tail lights?

I'm finding it hard to fight, believe me.

drive says 1,694kg , carpoint says 1690kg for manual series II . most of the forums seem to talk about 1700kg , so yea about 1730ish for auto the auto being 30kg heavier roughly . ford have no weight listed on their website which is strange . series I is a little lighter I think , dont know about 80kg , 1664 would sound more like a manual sI .

So it sounds like it is at least as heavy as I thought, but maybe heavier, which brings the power to weight ratios even closer together....interesting..

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 everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...