Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was wondering what you guys would choose. There is a really really 96' R33 GTS-T for sale from the guys I got my car from. It has pretty sweet rims

I'm wondering which would cost more to insure (my current cars insurance, green slip and pink slip costs are intense, but I imagine the R33's wouldn't be much difference). Also would the costs of petrol for the R33 be alot more than the R34s? I would assume so.

Anyway I'm just interested in what you guys would choose (I'm not considering changing, but am just curious anyway).

Here are some pictures of my current car, though I have now decided I'm not going to mod it at all.

http://www.aussiewheels.com/profile/View.php?ID=408

I think what I'm going to do is wait until I have a steady job in a few years, and the price of R34 GTT's has come down a bit, and then I'll trade in my current car and with price adjustment hopefully upgrade to the GTT :)

I was in the same situation as you but decided to go the 97 series 2 Gtst. Reason was The turbo model in the 34 was a bit dearer and I would of only been able to afford a 25GT. In the end the 33 was the better option for me as I was lucky enough to get one with the rare A-LSD in it. I would imagine the insurance on the turbo would be slightly more plus fuel as well being force fed. By the way thats a nice 34!

Well I would say that I get about a week and a half out of one tank and that's going about 25-35 km a day (on avg.) So basically for $45 bucks I'll get a solid 8 - 10 days worth of driving around the suburbs. On a freeway it uses basically nothing. I drove to Gosford and Back and the needle had moved maybe half a bar?

Thanks guys. I'm not considering the swap, but was interested in seeing what people thought anyway. I'm definitely going to wait to upgrade to a GTT.

I bought the 25GT over the Series II R33 GTS-t when I was looking at a car. The R34 was a much better ride and felt so much better to drive (excluding acceleration)

I converted my one to turbo in the end so I feel I made the right decision from the start :cheers:

350kms from a tank seems a bit average....I'm getting 420 pretty regulary with a fair amount of abuse, managed 470 this week though.

Hey mate,

Hows things ? Tim says Hi.

As you know I had a series 2 R33 about 3 years ago, before my 34GT.

On average I spent about $90 a week on petrol on the R33 and about $70 on the R34. Mind you petrol is more expensice these days.

On the R33 a service had to be done every $5000, on the R34 every $10000.

On the R33 tyres were replaced every 1.5 years on the R34 so far 2.25 years.

Insurance was $3300 on the R33, $2000 on the R34. But I was younger then so you have to take that into account.

On the R33, I had my clutch replaced after about 3years, the R34 not as yet.

I really liked my old R33, ive always said it was faster than the R34, but the R34 isnt that far behind. The R33 being a turbo obviously had a meatier and stronger mid range but funnily the R34 SEEMS as good if not a little better on the higher revs than the R33.

The R34 is a smoother car, it feels more refined and a little safer than my R33. The handling of the R34 is stiffer and I feel I have a little more control especially on tighter corners, the back end doesnt seem to be as loose as the R33.

All in all, I enjoyed my R33 when I had it. But as you know I'm not as young as you are and I guess I dont feel the need for speed much anymore.

I think you did the right thing by getting the R34. Its not a bad car to start learning how to drive a RWD manual car. Its fast enough to teach you where your limits should be but also safe enough that you wont get into too much trouble if u attempt to corner with a little too much speed.

Also the sudden type power delivery of a turbo car can be a little dangerous for inexperienced drivers. A NA car with its linear power delivery is a safer option. There has been plenty a time when I have accelarated out of a corner in my old R33 and the sudden power of the turbo almost made me loose the back end.

Looks the R34 IMO is just plain better.

The main thing to have put me off R33s (with the exception of really clean Series II models) is that they are just so damn common these days. I see at least 3 different R33 SI's a day (and by different I mean that I rarely see the same ones over different days - they are almost always completely different cars).

I love the look of a nice SII, but I really don't like the look of the older-than-1995 R33s.

On the other hand I might see the odd R34 on campus (we have about 5 at my uni), but other than that I would probably only see a handful each month. On top of that, I agree with CWest, I just think they look better :P

Once again just my opinion.

i think 90% of people think they look better.. they are a class above, a very hot looking car!!! We all like r33s but they seem abit common, 34s stand out that bit more, id take a 34GT over a 33 GTS-T aswell. Just wait awhile until you can upgrade to the GT-T model then you have the best of both worlds :P

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, 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.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...