# Review of Evo vs R34 GTR



## Livelee (May 11, 2003)

Stolen from the MLR. 
Author: Colonel Mullet 



> GTR vs Evo, round three.
> 
> Long-termers on here may already know about my love-hate relationship with my Skyline R34 GTR. It was and probably still is my ‘dream car’ but it failed to fill the hole left by my Evo 6 to such an extent that when the wife’s car (the sensible, practical, 2nd car) was due for replacement we ended up with another Evo. And of course, since then the GTR has been languishing in the garage doing not a lot. So, it was time to see if it could be turned into something worth driving rather than just something nice to look at. Having already done the visual mods with a Nismo body kit and Trust lowering springs to sort out the comedy ride height (come back from the continent and remember to check your wheelarches for asylum seekers) it was time for an Abbey Stage 1 conversion…
> 
> ...


Thoughts?


----------



## JapFreak786 (Aug 29, 2003)

Interesting


----------



## Livelee (May 11, 2003)

After reading that I dug out an old (*Aug 1999) Auto car.

They compare the 2 cars, It's a long review but i'll quote the final paragraph.



> The best one costs the most, but that doesn't mean we think anything less of the Evo VI. If you can afford the Nissan, buy it, comfortable in the knowledge that there isn't a better performance car on the planet that costs less money. If not, stick with the Evo and you won't be disappointed. That much we guarantee


Rather than take the opinion of an obvious Evo lover i'll trust that.


----------



## Ajax (Jun 16, 2005)

Well i dunno! Some of it is abit of a suprise, especially the handling comments.
I had a type r scooby, surely a match for handling to most evo's and i can throw my gtr about much the same (within reason  )as i did the scooby and the skylines around 300kg heavier.
He mentions the "flick"...........snigger, i do that too without any drama!
He makes it sound like a near death manouver.
Maybe my 275 tryres and HKS coilovers will make a differance but i wouldnt have thought a standard 34 was that bad, is it??


----------



## andy g (Mar 1, 2005)

I think somebody needs to do a driving course.
Do like evo`s but all to there own, its only one persons opinion before it becomes all out war on this forum. I also have 275 tyres and uprated suspension and never had a real moment that i wasnt expecting or needed.


----------



## Dave_R1001 (Nov 24, 2002)

The Colonel is known for his Clarkson-esque reports  Dont take it too seriously.

I can understand some of it though. Firstly Ive not driven an R34 so this is all based on my R32. I had an Evo 6 prior to the 32 and it is a totally different car (if you have never driven one, try to. Its very different!) The tail happy impression is certainly justified imo. From only two trips to airfields I have learnt to respect/fear the loud pedal and only use it with caution! 
The Skyline is still "a league above" imo. The power delivery never gets boring, ok so its not all that low down but it just builds and builds and builds... Compared to the very flat (albeit standard) Evo.

Id still go back to an Evo at somepoint. VIII's are becoming very reasonable in cost now, or maybe a TME. Having both would be nice though


----------



## jimfortune (Sep 9, 2005)

the handling on the gtr cant be that bad.......can it???


----------



## vennuth (Aug 2, 2001)

Have to agree with the massively unimpressive performance - it might be the over long gearing, but the GTR doesn't feel remarkably faster than the old tuned Cupra R unless really pushed, and it's now upto Stage 1. Plus it understeers at the limit. And the brakes are rubbish. And it hasn't exactly been reliable. And it drinks the fuel...

...but when you're hanging the back end out with a smidgen of opposite lock, 4 wheel drifiting onto a dual carriageway then properly nail it to 7k, listening to it howl, popping flames between gear changes and grinning like an idiot, it's bloody great 

Rob


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

You just have to respect the way the GTR handles and learn how to drive it properly ... people like Rocket Ron, Ron Kiddell, Harry, Peter, Shin, etc (to name a few) - who've taken the time to master it, don't seem to have too many problems chucking them around (with or without suspension upgrades).

I don't profess to be a particularly good driver ... very cautious infact, but I chuck mine about nearly as much as I did the old GTI-R - although I'm still very cautious. You just take the time to learn where that limit is. 

I also have great fun getting the back to step-out and powering through it ... just like I did on the way to Abbey's the other day. Powered around a corner onto a 70mph dual carriageway and I planted my foot slightly earlier, got the back end out and just controlled the slide and accelerated through it. Such a great feeling when you get it right. Signicantly more fun than the 4-wheel slides I used to achieve in the GTI-R.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

The gtr is a big car to throw about,I would of said that the evo was the easier car to get in and drive.
Both fantastic cars.


----------



## GTR-Zilla (May 17, 2005)

around the twisties the skyline will not have an advantage over an evo or a scoob, but saying that peter did damn well at totb handling course compared to the evos!!

what i cant understand is on one of the best motoring videos, the GTR's was properly beaten by the scoobs and evos around Taksuba track


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

what i cant understand is on one of the best motoring videos, the GTR's was properly beaten by the scoobs and evos around Taksuba track


Any idea on what specs the cars were running?
Cant of been standard??


----------



## Hydro (Apr 22, 2005)

Hello all, only post every now and then.

Interesting piece, but can`t help feel a little truth in whats been said. Although we all want the Skyline GTR to be every bit the legend grand Turismo portrays it to be, I personally feel it does not deliver as expected. I think this is down to misunderstanding as to what to expect. Todays GTRs were developed for high speed track racing where hard suspension and lag are part of the package. These attributes do not go down well on a public road, where potholes are everywhere, traffic a sad reality (I think most will admit the Skyline is pretty sluggish in and around town.)
and 'fun' over 90 mph (where the Skyline comes into its own) - likely to cause the loss of your licence. 

The EVO on the other hand is far more suited to everyday driving, more fun to drive in town with less lag and better for B-road blasting. Being from a rally breed it feels more 'alive' than the heavier track oriented Skyline, which will contibute to its flickability.

I suppose it all comes down to what people want from their cars. My last play thing was a 'Lego brick' EVO 1 with 300hp. This car was equipped with a low ratio gravel box geared to 115mph. Not a high top speed (although who cares?), but acceleration was ferociously fun. 
Moving to the more civilised Skyline, I really have grown up and do love it - but deep down I do miss the naughty rally slag for pure driving enjoyment.


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

jimfortune said:


> the handling on the gtr cant be that bad.......can it???


After a year of sprinting my R32 against evos......yes.
Does not make it a bad car.
There is a lot of rwd cars that are faster from A to B than an evo


----------



## djdexter247 (Mar 31, 2005)

Personal preference really, Skyline good for touring car style circuits - Evos anhialate everything in sprint events,

Jase E


----------



## kingsley (Aug 26, 2002)

I see where people are coming from with some of the comments on here about GTR performance.

I've never ever been in, let alone driven, a totally stock GTR. When I first got mine it had downpipes, exhaust and air filters and was running 1 bar. The previous owner took it along to a dyno day and it made 382bhp (flywheel).

My previous car was a Calibra which had a moderately tuned 3.0 V6 making approx 250bhp. When I first drove the Skyline, I was very underwhelmed by the engine performance. Below 3000rpm it was hopeless and once the turbos came in it didn't feel all that much more powerful than the Calibra. It did, however, feel totally stable compared to the Calibra and the chassis could clearly get the power down onto the road.

My car has now been set up for response as much as power. It's now a shade under 500bhp (flywheel) and response is leagues ahead of what it used to be. It's still a 2.6 and the only internal engine change is a set of cams.

Unless you want horsepower in spades, you can make a GTR a responsive car. They don't come like that from the factory, though ... and you do get to a point where you have to sacrifice one for the other.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

The Evo's lightness goes a long way to making it a better road car and maybe in a couple of years I may get one 2nd hand myself. 

I like the Skyline's delivery (stage 1 R32 GT-R with Andy's TSC and Ohlins coilovers - which makes a hell of a difference to handling) better than the Scoob's I tried (WRX PPP and a Type RA). 

The Skylines are very heavy under braking and because of the weight when they understeer they REALLY understeer as I found out at the weekend (brown trouser moment)! The weight is the big problem not the basic handling as against cars of the same weight it easily out handles them IMHO. 

What the writer didn't say much about was (what I discovered after a bit of research) the cost to get the older EVO's to any good power level - trying to pull 450bhp outta an Evo for less than £15,000 all in was impossible and any older ones I seen was in sh*te condition.

For the money an R32 is a far better deal than any Scoob or Evo in it's price range but if you have the cash then a new Evo would be a better car standard then a standard 2nd hand R34 for the UK roads - easily better  .


----------



## Pikey (Feb 19, 2004)

> The standard car was the same, but with the power upgrade it’s now even more keen to play Ditchfinder General when you’re trying to pass slower traffic. The only way to do it is to proceed at a very gentle angle onto the opposite carriageway, straighten up and ensure there is no more than 0.0001 degree of steering lock applied, floor the throttle, wait for the lag, check your foot to see that the mat hasn’t got stuck under the throttle as you still don’t appear to be going anywhere, check that the steering wheel is still perfectly aligned, observe the approaching lorry that is now rather closer than it was, wait a bit more for the turbos to wake up, ignore the wife calmly pointing out the apparent imminence of death, hold on tight to make sure you’re absolutely dead straight as everything goes warp speed and you scream past three more cars than you’d intended to pass, tuck back in very gently to avoid any sudden movements that may rouse Mr ATESSA from watching his re-runs of Magnum PI in the back, wave politely at the lorry driver who’s doing the special “I’ve seen a Skyline” wave that everyone does (you know, the wrist-action one) and then laugh as you look in your mirror and see one of the Rovers you overtook slew off into a field after the pensioner driving has a coronary from your exhaust noise. It’s kind of fun, but then so is train-surfing or crocodile wrestling or ****ing on the bus… either way, one day you’ll get caught out and the result won’t be very pretty.


I nearly died with laughter at that bit


----------



## vennuth (Aug 2, 2001)

Pikey said:


> I nearly died with laughter at that bit


Made me laugh too


----------



## Phil LS (Nov 1, 2004)

A load of bollocks really isn't it  Funny though.


----------



## Demon Dave (Sep 15, 2002)

very funny write up, with perhaps some truths in there too...but at the end of the day, I tried and tested both and for me the *GTR* was by far the better car


----------



## GTRNICK (Apr 29, 2005)

Well TBH I have had an Evo 7 FQ300 with a few extra mods and an Evo 8 MR FQ340 with a few extra mods (came second In the cannonball8000 2004 with the Evo8). So I think it's a cracking piece of machinery for a 2Litre lump, but there is no way in hell you can compare it with a Skyline R34 GTR(or any Skyline GTR).!!! The Skyline just takes the p*ss out of the Evo's, for a start you feel so much more involved when driving the R34 and It has alot more mid-range and top-end power over the Evo. The Evo's power dies at about 120mph and the Skyline just carries on!!! I guess it depends what you want from a car, but in my view the Skyline is a 200mph beast, where as the Evo is 150-180mph beast(depending on model) and I want to do 200mph  .!!! Also my Skyline has similar mods to the Evo Mr I owned and what a difference, I dont regret buying my Skyline one bit!!!
But then everyone has their own story/opinion so I'll leave it there.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> The Evo's lightness goes a long way to making it a better road car and maybe in a couple of years I may get one 2nd hand myself.
> 
> I like the Skyline's delivery (stage 1 R32 GT-R with Andy's TSC and Ohlins coilovers - which makes a hell of a difference to handling) better than the Scoob's I tried (WRX PPP and a Type RA).
> 
> ...


Unless of course you mod the Skyline and then the Evo will get it's ar*e kicked


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

I had an EVO VI that was running a 380 RallyArt conversion till June and it was a great car and fun to drive but once I got my 34 I used the Mitsi for general day to day driving/shopping and did all my pleasure driving in the 34.
The EVO was tiring to drive so it got sold but I would have another for a trackcar.


----------



## purpleskyline (May 27, 2005)

just a little note to whats been said, i sold my evo7running at 1.5bar, and took my skyline r33 gtr in px, now i enjoyed the evo but to say a gtr has a harsh ride , try driving an evo around allday i lost a filling, but agree slightly with the handling issues, when i got the skyline i went round the same bend as if i was in the evo, and did a 360 to the unamusment to oncoming lady driver. but like people say you have to go out and learn the limits you can go to in a gtr, my wife hated the evo, but loves the skyline, she prefares to drive it when i let her,and she says i am brutal to my cars when i give them stick, just like going sideways, to mke the kids smile.


----------



## GTRNICK (Apr 29, 2005)

The Skyline is a drivers car and not for the faint hearted, an Evo is blo*ody easy to drive!!!!!


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

GTRNICK said:


> The Skyline is a drivers car and not for the faint hearted, an Evo is blo*ody easy to drive!!!!!


Don't say that as I'm just over a month away from the 1st anniversary of my coronary  
My cardiologist was pleased when I informed him I had sold my Cosworth and bought a nice and sensible old Datsun Coupe..lol


----------



## GTRNICK (Apr 29, 2005)

Crazy man Cam  !!!LoL Your Datsun is far from sensible  !!!LoL


----------



## KRS (Jul 10, 2005)

That was a very intresting read! 

If your driving a skyline like its an EVO.. then your forgetting that until the last minute a GTR is a REAR WHEEL drive car. The lines are very diffrent and the driving skill required is much more envolving. But i would never conclude that the EVOs handling is better, just diffrent and probably a whole lot easyer.

All you do with 4 wheel drive is point and floor it, IMO a GTR is a much more involving machine. 

But what do i know, ive never driven either


----------



## purpleskyline (May 27, 2005)

that is true, but when i did my 360 had only had the gtr for 2 hours, since then its been a learning curve to get back used to rear wheel drive car, but oh what fun it has been, just need more power now.


----------



## Daz (Aug 14, 2001)

EVO's and Skylines are 2 completely different types of cars - designed to compete in 2 completely different types of motorsport. The only reason people compare them is because they have SIMILAR performance figures (out of the box) and because the GTR can be 4wd (even though most of the time it's RWD).

The EVO should be compared to Subaru's, Pulsars, etc ... other rally based road cars, not GT cars. It's like comparing a Speedway motorbike to a MotoGP bike - both designed to do completely different things. OK, they both have 2 wheels, but thats about the only comparison you can make.

The Skylines handling can't be that bad .... several of them seemed to do VERY well at GT Battle earlier this year - and I don't remember that being a straight line event.


----------



## rasonline (Mar 24, 2005)

Flippin' HICAS scared me $h1tle$$ first time i felt it working...

sTill peeves me off to this day.

Created by SATAN himself


----------



## Dave_R1001 (Nov 24, 2002)

vennuth said:


> Have to agree with the massively unimpressive performance - it might be the over long gearing, but the GTR doesn't feel remarkably faster than the old tuned Cupra R unless really pushed, and it's now upto Stage 1. Plus it understeers at the limit. And the brakes are rubbish. And it hasn't exactly been reliable. And it drinks the fuel...
> 
> ...but when you're hanging the back end out with a smidgen of opposite lock, 4 wheel drifiting onto a dual carriageway then properly nail it to 7k, listening to it howl, popping flames between gear changes and grinning like an idiot, it's bloody great
> 
> Rob


Here Here! 

Especially the shit brakes! Compared to OE evo brakes they are made from wet flannels.


----------



## Neil_H (Mar 30, 2004)

KRS said:


> That was a very intresting read!
> 
> If your driving a skyline like its an EVO.. then your forgetting that until the last minute a GTR is a REAR WHEEL drive car. The lines are very diffrent and the driving skill required is much more envolving. But i would never conclude that the EVOs handling is better, just diffrent and probably a whole lot easyer.
> 
> ...


It also made me wonder how much RWD experience the author has, you can't floor any high powered RWD car whilst you have lock on without causing a fuss - this is a given and not Skyline-specific (which is RWD most of the time AFAIK). Like you say it's a more invoving drive as you actually have to think about your inputs rather than just flooring it and letting the car do the thinking. I think he has simply become acustomed to driving with the Evo 4WD AYC system for too long.....but like you I haven't driven either car so maybe I should keep quiet 

Top read though, I like his writing style


----------



## Miness (Aug 24, 2005)

2 completely different cars imo


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

Exactly what I was thinking - he is comparing apples and pears. RWD with AWD - sounds like he needs a few driving lessons on the RWD  

T


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

But hang on guys........why have a 4WD car that isn't 4WD? 

i.e. the disadvantage of a 4WD system = Heavy, and drag/power on front axles causing understeer. without the FULL advantage of a 4WD system = predictable handling, high tractive grip.

I must admit, I agree with many of the points brought up in the original post. I desperately wanted an R33 GTR myself, until I eventually drove one. When driving it, I just couldn't help feeling that there was a continous comittee meeting going on within the car, trying to decide on what angle the rear wheels should be, and what power needs to go to the front wheels, etc. leaving the driver in a very uninformed situation. The single vehicle accident phenomenon is high in GTR circles as a result. There are some manoevres that the GTR is not comfortable with, usually in the transition zone between RWD and 4WD modes (as if it was clear).


The most accomplished GTR drivers, seem to have learned to take the car by the scruff of the neck, and force it to make the decisions, to get the respectable track times they achieve. Lets face it, we have all seen some high powered GTR's running poor lap times too. It just goes to show that it is not a predictable machine.
It seems that until GTR owners get that bold, the true potential of the car is wasted, and dare I say even dangerous.


----------



## Philip (Jan 17, 2002)

There's more to it than that - 4WD is useful to have with a lot of power, especially in places like the UK where it's often damp.

With 400 bhp/tonne and 2WD you will most likely spend a lot of time not going anywhere quickly.

Phil


----------



## skyline501 (Jun 29, 2001)

Something has always puzzled me. Skyline knockers invariable quote the Attessa system as "doing the driving for you". Name me a high performance car (forget TVR), that isn't packed with electronic driving aids. Stability control, AWD, (4WD, AYC, ACB, ABS, Evo anyone?), PASM, ASR etc. etc....


Vincenzo


----------



## SteveN (Aug 6, 2002)

People bang on about GTRs being RWD etc etc etc, but that is their problem most the time. 
As Nisfan says, seems like most roadgoing ones arnt as 4wd as they should be, which kind of (ok totally) defys the point of having 4wd.
Wether its worn centre diffs or just the poo way they set to run as standard, i dunno, but its not good, and the main reason they can be a bit iffy.
Understeering 4wd is bad (and most full-time 4wds do) but seems due to either lack of overall grip, slow reacting 4wd system, or just generally too rear biast even when going into 4wd mode, its just not that brilliant.



Philip said:


> With 400 bhp/tonne and 2WD you will most likely spend a lot of time not going anywhere quickly


Exactly why i sold my pervious car.
But in another way its why I miss it so much! Fun isnt all about how fast something accelerates or laps, something we all forget too often i think.


----------



## DCD (Jun 28, 2001)

Comical review yes, some truth in it sure, but I think the person that wrote it has given a personal interpretation of two very different cars by trying to assume they should be delivering the same kind of performance/experience. I think it all comes down to personal preference really. Some drivers prefer the safe, drive fast as hell and chuck it anywhere at full chat way of doing things of the Evo. While others prefer being in a far more advanced driving machine that needs to be explored to very hard to reach depths to be fully exploited. And even then you might not have the talent to get yourself out of certain situations. This is especially true if you assume that "Mr. Atessa" (it's actually Attesa, but never mind!) will get you out of @ss-clenching situations.

Evos are great cars, but GT-Rs will always be more special and rewarding to drive. I've driven Evos and they have always bored me for total lack of involvement. To be made interesting they need probably more work than a GTR needs. One thing is true though, standard GT-Rs aren't that fast. But that's what Nissan had to do to sell the car in Japan.


----------



## Dave_R1001 (Nov 24, 2002)

Im still curious where the impression that electronics turn you into Fernando Alonso came from? In either car!!!


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

Having seen someone 'hussling' a skyline, it looks a lot harder work than an Evo (RS) going similar speeds..

The (G) AYC is un-nerving in the GSR models IMO, it makes it hard to predict what the car is going to do.

They are completely different cars though, but they will always be compared, due to fairly comparable performance (whatever the power).

Which can be taken either way, either the Evo is exceptionally good & able to pack a punch way bigger than it should be able to, or a Skyline underachieves to a certain extent..


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

NISFAN said:


> The most accomplished GTR drivers, seem to have learned to take the car by the scruff of the neck, and force it to make the decisions, to get the respectable track times they achieve. Lets face it, we have all seen some high powered GTR's running poor lap times too. It just goes to show that it is not a predictable machine.


Quite correct. Something that I have learnt this year. Only problem is that I can only really take it by the scruff of the neck on the track, not the road.


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

Philip said:


> There's more to it than that - 4WD is useful to have with a lot of power, especially in places like the UK where it's often damp.
> 
> With 400 bhp/tonne and 2WD you will most likely spend a lot of time not going anywhere quickly.
> 
> Phil


Agreed in theory
One of the problems with the 'indirect' 4WD system as fitted to the GTR, is that it isn't quick enough in reaction to be most effective. In a purely straight line acceleration sense, the system allows massive rear wheel spin before reacting and transferring the torque to the front. Watch some videos of GTR and other 4WD cars at a drag strip in slo mo. All standard GTR's light up the rears (if launched at full power), with no/little spinning of the front tyres. In fact so poor an open diff is used up front. This is good for consistent launches, but not the best for optimum 4WD traction, which is why (IMO) you have a 4WD in the first place. 
Note how Subaru's hop and lurch off the line, due to direct 4WD. 
Then theres going round corners, when it comes to confidence inspiring 4WD, I think the Subaru takes it, understeer, yes, boring, maybe, but you know exactly how it's going to react every time, and as a result can go much closer to the limit every time. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the GTR. 
Front wheel torque % a function of speed, yaw, steering wheel angle, etc. all these continously vary when cornering at the limit, poor attessa, trying to work that one out. Poor driver trying to react to what the car is doing.

Due to weight balance, and just weight, the GTR 4WD system is a compromise, and this means it doesn't give you full 4WD ability IMO. Lets be fair to it though, it has not been upgraded much in the last 20 years (since conception), and is tuneable enough for the racing teams, just poor in stock set up. The latest EVO system is miles ahead now.

It will be interesting to see how my car performs, some 350Kg's lighter than a GTR, but with GTR power (500+BHP/ton). Not as much straight line traction, sure, but round a track, we all know what a disadvantage 350Kg's is. 
Question is, is the partial 4WD worth more in track times than 350Kg's? A question to be answered next summer.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

This has turned out to be an interesting post! Another 2p worth from me...

Andy's TSC makes a hell of a difference to how the Skyline behaves and I have found by using the settings Andy recommended that I can take roundabouts etc like a mad man. I was so confident having done some heroics over the last 2 months of driving that in fact I tried doing a 110 degree sharp left at 40mph at the weekend only to find out that 1.5 tons of metal understeers likes a b*stard and makes you sh*t your pants. The older Scoobs with upped power I drove had lots of chassis flex and the new ones (WRX PPP) felt underpowered - more like a very fast GTI than a true supercar.

I think a stage 1 R32 is for the money is a better buy than the same priced Scoobs/Evo both for power, handling and fun but the choice gets a lot more fuzzy like the money racks up.


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

I used to have a Blitz 4wd controller but it broke (previous owner said that it unduced understeer anyway). So my 500bhp R32 GTR is only aided by Tein suspension (camber etc set up Rod Bell) and locked up rear wheel steer.
This is part of an email I received last week from a fellow sprinter that drives a westfield on slick tryres. The corner he is on about is very tight, narrow and back on itself, is approached in 2nd gear, taken in 1st  and flat out accelerated out of on a widening corner not a straight.


> ..... like to see your car,500bhp is lots,what do you know about evos and scoobs,i would like a scoob 3 door type r ,but is the evo 6 a better car,you may have the answer,watched your car go round first corner,awesome ,for a large car.......


My answer was - Yes - the evo 6 RS was a better car for tight course, but only just. 
Evo6 RS - 51.83
R32GTR - 52.41
Pretty close for a car not suited to the venue :smokin: 
My point is that the car does drive very well (but sideways) if driven very hard. You do need balls to do it and it has taken a novice like me nearly a year to drive it properly.
Dave


----------



## liquidculture (Apr 19, 2004)

I do wonder if the 34 has had its mph conversion done badly, ie where the attessa thinks its still in kmph? might explain his fear of it, once I hung the back out a few times I learnt how to drive my Skyline and drive according to the car, I can get them around corners in a way that I never thought possible. Try to drive a 'normal' car round bends like I do in the Skyline and you know what fear is.
As said its also down to the drivers taste, I tested scooby's and bought an FTO - strange choice you might think but I enjoyed driving the FTO more, the small 4 wheel drive cars like Subarus and Evo's are too frenetic for me, might be a function of age perhaps, and the Skyline suits me fine, I enjoy driving them more than any other car I have driven so far and dont forget the Skyline was detuned massively to be sold to the public, in its 'standard' form its only a shadow of its designed form (and as said 20 years old now) still an amazing car that can live with almost anything even today depending on how its set up, and cheap by comparison.


----------



## hissingsyd (Nov 4, 2003)

*sprinting evo vs gtr*

with advise from Mark & work carried out at Abbey on my 34 the car is now competitive against a class leading Evo. This is the first year of sprinting for myself & my son and it has taken seven months & 5 meeting to get there.
On sunday my son got withing 0.2 seconds to the formentioned Evo on a 2 kilometer twisty, bumpy circuit at North Weald.
I do not know the spec of the Evo but it sure aint standard, the driver is quite experienced and is good at the wheel.
My 34 is now running 500bhp, has most of the bells and whistles in the handling & stopping department - just to give us a chance against Evos & scoobies on these short circuits. But put the gtr on the road and there is no comparison, the gtr just stretches its legs and goes on & on.
Roll on 2006


----------



## rancidmonkey (Feb 14, 2005)

The aforementioned son here...

After running a few sprints with the 400bhp, throwing the car around, computer helping out, oversteer not all that noticable. We were posting good times, getting points, doing ok.

Add another 100bhp... wow. Different car. Harder to drive.
Took it out on the road after 15 mins of drizzle, and I pooed my pants.
Went to over take a scooby after coming off a roundabout, backend started twitching as much as by backside.
It seemed the sledgehammer of power was affecting the drive.
Then, on a sliproad going about 2degrees to the right and again, backend all over the place. I promptly took it back, and drove slowly home in my spongey Lexus.

Then we sprint it, as my old man mentioned. Both noticing oversteer, posting crap times. Increasing the drive to the front courtesy of the torque splitter, made all the difference. 

We have come to the conclusion that others in this thread have...
Evo's are great cars (im thinking about buying one) you get in and drive, but the skyline is something else, much greater potential, but you have to learn to respect it and drive it like a racecar. 

You stick me in a formula one car, and I'll spin it on the first lap. It's the same, although not to the same extent with the Skyline. 

Learn to race first.


Steve


----------



## liquidculture (Apr 19, 2004)

rancidmonkey said:


> Learn to race first.
> 
> 
> Steve


True, they demand skill to be driven to their potential, an Evo or Scooby doesn't


----------



## Colonel Mullet (Jul 7, 2003)

I didn't post on here because of my obvious Evo bias - it would have seemed, well, impolite. However, as it's turned up anyway... 

As some have already guessed, I am a supremely untalented driver. Safe, yes, but I will never have anything like the mastery of controls necessary to be a good 'racing' driver. I therefore want my cars' electronics to work for me and make up for my lack of ability. It's no surprise that I prefer the Evo. However, what I fail to understand is why more talented drivers would want the GTR's electronics either, as they surely reduce the 'purity' of the experience and get in the way of their _skillz_. To me, this makes ATTESA and HICAS an expensive waste of time - the worst of both worlds. Of course a skilled driver can hustle a Skyline quickly - full respect to those who do so successfully - but I can't help thinking that this may sometimes be despite (and not because of) the car's ability. 

I did not assume that the GTR would offer me the same kind of experience as the Evo. I didn't even buy it expecting it to be a fantastic drive because I'd read enough about them to know that my 'style' was far better suited to an Evo. I bought it because I loved the way it looked and because I wanted the posing value its legendary status gave. However, I don't think I was quite prepared for just how poor the standard car is in terms of a driving experience. It really is just not a very good car. By contrast, a Stage 1 GTR _is_ a very good car. If you've never lived with a standard GTR then I can quite understand why you may not believe that, but it is the truth.

As a final point, I really can't understand the 'apples and pears - no comparison' thing. The two cars are Japanese, turbocharged, ~300bhp, electronically-aided 4WD motors that appeal to the same target audience, as evidenced by the number of people who have owned both. Just how much closer do you need to be for the comparison to be worthy? The fact that the two cars were designed for two different purposes matters not a jot when you're comparing how good they are at doing something that _neither_ car was designed for, i.e. driving on UK roads! 

Anyway, no matter - the whole thing was just a bit of fun to entertain the MLR lads and was certainly not intended to provoke the more 'serious' responses that it has done over here. I am glad to see that it provided some people with amusement anyway.


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

Colonel, I hope you have a whole Army behind you, because you'll get lynched


----------



## liquidculture (Apr 19, 2004)

Colonel Mullet said:


> As a final point, I really can't understand the 'apples and pears - no comparison' thing. The two cars are Japanese, turbocharged, ~300bhp, electronically-aided 4WD motors that appeal to the same target audience, as evidenced by the number of people who have owned both. Just how much closer do you need to be for the comparison to be worthy? The fact that the two cars were designed for two different purposes matters not a jot when you're comparing how good they are at doing something that _neither_ car was designed for, i.e. driving on UK roads!


Whilst most of what you say is fair comment how you can say that the two are close enough for a comparison to be worthy escapes me, you may as well say that any two vehicles being driven on UK roads are comparable, which is of course utterly fatuous, for instance by that rationale you could say that a Mini can be compared to a stretch limo, or a MX5 to a Formula 1 car (road legal of course) 
So of course the fact that the two cars were designed for different purposes matters, unless, as you say, you are a supremely untalented driver to such an extent that you cannot notice the difference, in which case I do wonder why you bother buying anything more than a Nissan Micra


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

I think the Col has had a fair speak about this and it is a honest viewpoint.
My GT-R is stage 1 with an Ohlins susp, TSC and strut braces everywhere so I don't really know how a std car would behave. What I do know is that I'm a sh*te driver and this car makes me feel like Alonso on a good day. It also is a bitch (ditchfinder general) on broken tarmac but takes roundabout like the fcuking batmobile and has currently out run all but one biker (which totally amazed me as I thought bikes were outta my league) who have taken the bait - silly people taking on a GT-R :smokin: . 

The Evo was a choice of mine but after costing etc it turned out to be far too expensive to go the Evo route - I reckon I needed to spend £20k+ to get a Evo as good/fast as my R32 GT-R which was stupid money considering it would have been worth half that in 3 years. I think the Col has a right to his opinion on the GT-R as he is an owner after all but I think he needs to mod it and he can do so by selling the Evo and using the money on the GT-R  .


----------



## matttyevo (Nov 13, 2004)

skyline501 said:


> Something has always puzzled me. Skyline knockers invariable quote the Attessa system as "doing the driving for you". Name me a high performance car (forget TVR), that isn't packed with electronic driving aids. Stability control, AWD, (4WD, AYC, ACB, ABS, Evo anyone?), PASM, ASR etc. etc....
> 
> 
> Vincenzo


All RS Evo's have no driver aids ..? no ABS or AYC ...?

so whats your point?


----------



## matttyevo (Nov 13, 2004)

davewilkins said:


> I used to have a Blitz 4wd controller but it broke (previous owner said that it unduced understeer anyway). So my 500bhp R32 GTR is only aided by Tein suspension (camber etc set up Rod Bell) and locked up rear wheel steer.
> This is part of an email I received last week from a fellow sprinter that drives a westfield on slick tryres. The corner he is on about is very tight, narrow and back on itself, is approached in 2nd gear, taken in 1st  and flat out accelerated out of on a widening corner not a straight.
> 
> My answer was - Yes - the evo 6 RS was a better car for tight course, but only just.
> ...


 Dave I consider Thorsby a straight line course as the corners were slow and then long straights ..  plus you do have 100bhp more than me


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

I still think that it is a tarmac rally stage Matt 
And I still say evos are better (but that was a lot of pages back!) - The extra 100bhp is a hindrance rather than a help.

As I have not seen a post from you recently Matt - congratulations on the trophy win - three of them in one weekend


----------



## matttyevo (Nov 13, 2004)

Thanks Dave ..This was not a which car is better from me, as the skyline would a car choice for me in the future, all things considerd we both improved loads through the season, well done Dave...

Matt


----------



## djdexter247 (Mar 31, 2005)

skyline501 said:


> Something has always puzzled me. Skyline knockers invariable quote the Attessa system as "doing the driving for you". Name me a high performance car (forget TVR), that isn't packed with electronic driving aids. Stability control, AWD, (4WD, AYC, ACB, ABS, Evo anyone?), PASM, ASR etc. etc....
> 
> 
> Vincenzo


My mates Evo VI RS Sprint definately has fcuk all driver aids, there are a fair few cars on MLR that are the same, any RS model for example.




liquidculture said:


> True, they demand skill to be driven to their potential, an Evo or Scooby doesn't



Beg to differ, having been to events where both cars competed against eachother (TOTB IV) and even events where the cars were against themselves (Haynes sprint on MLR) I can safely say skill is required to get both driven properly.

As previously stated by a few, these cars cannot really be compared on a competative level they were built for 2 totally different class of event. The only real comparator is on normal day to day roads where they are both Jap built performance cars.

I would have one of each but for total diferent reasons,

Regards,

Jase E


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

> True, they demand skill to be driven to their potential, an Evo or Scooby doesn't


Personally I would think that even a 2cv in one make racing needs skill to be driven to it's potential. I cannot see the point in knocking the ability of drivers of other marques by saying that their car drives itself. 
The will feel as annoyed as I do when people tell me my car does it all for me  
All cars need a skilled driver to make them move fast - don't I know it


----------



## koopa (Aug 18, 2005)

*puts fingers in ears* lal la la la la i cant hear you!!

I just bought a GTR Le mans spec and coming from previously owning an s1 lotus exige and an evo 7 FQ300 i cant wait for the GTR. Ive never been in one or driven one and to be honest i dont care if its overhyped. The hard facts remain that it looks AWESOME, you dont see as many on the road as you would an evo and to top it off, i believe that the RB26 is a far better motor for tuning. How many reliable 500hp evos are there compared to GTR's?


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

koopa said:


> How many reliable 500hp evos are there compared to GTR's?


Apaprt from bringing up an old post...

A lot!


----------



## koopa (Aug 18, 2005)

-C- said:


> Apaprt from bringing up an old post...


eh? 

and with regards to "A lot " of evos running a reliable 500bhp? I would say bollocks!!  360-400bhp maybe but 500bhp? Perhaps a handful but i doubt they are running it reliably and i bet the majority of them are owned by tuning companies and need constant attention


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

360-400bhp is high end stage one terratory, where most cars are really 

You think a tuner would bother with just 500bhp these days? 500bhp is no less reliable in an Evo or a Skyline... Bhp sells for them, hence why some have 800+, some have 900+, some claim over 1000.

May I remind you that an Evo is around 0.4 of a second slower than the fastest Skyline in Europe right now on the quarter mile? (and it ran with 18" wheels, normal road tyres & an H pattern dog box). And its not a sole drag car....


----------



## koopa (Aug 18, 2005)

Not a chance. almost every tuner on the MLR register will not quote 380-400bhp as the results of a stage 1 tune. You are more likely talking 310-330bhp max. Getting anything above 350-360 takes a lot of work to make the engine strong enough. Believe me, when i owned my evo 7 i called nuff places to get prices and descriptions of tuning because i thought it would be a relatively easy car to tune. Of course a respectable tuning company will create a car with silly power (take norris designs or RC developments) but these cars are tuned to the hilt, most are stroked/bored out to make that kind of power and i seem to remember the RC developments evo having a lot of problems after a recent 1/4 mile drag event. My point was about the majority of RELIABLE ROAD-GOING 500bhp GTR's about compared to evo's. 

The evo is by no means a bad car ,as i say , i used to own one and thoroughly enjoyed it.


----------



## koopa (Aug 18, 2005)

-C- said:


> And its not a sole drag car....


the skyline is a GT car, it is far less of a drag racer than a rally car like an evo which is smaller, lighter, has closer gear ratios etc


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

My Evo had a standard engine & turbo, with a few bolt on parts (exhaust/induction/FPR/ECU) and made high 300's, one of my friends has a similar spec & his makes high 300's as well.

A standard engine will take up to & around 420bhp if you know what you are doing..

Why they are compared I have no idea - my Skyline is a completely different car to my Evo in every sense.


----------



## psd1 (May 15, 2004)

-C- said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> 
> My Evo had a standard engine & turbo, with a few bolt on parts (exhaust/induction/FPR/ECU) and made high 300's, one of my friends has a similar spec & his makes high 300's as well.
> 
> ...


 High 300's as in 380-390...to the hubs??? Show me the dyno sheet!


----------



## -C- (Oct 16, 2003)

No - flywheel bhp


----------



## DaleHarrison (Nov 16, 2005)

I would say that from reading the review with no affiliation to either car at the moment (I will become an R32 owner in a month or so) It seems that he has been extremely one sided.

I would say that the Skyline is a thorough bread touring car, the Evo is a thorough bread rally car. Comparing the two is going to be hard work as they have strengths over each other in totally seperate areas.

The Evo standardly is going to handle better than the Skyline (again I have never driven either car so can't confirm this for myself, but just going on what the cars were designed for)

I'm sure the Evo could be quicker point to point, but the Skyline was build for fast road use yes? So how could it be 'that' pants when overtaking? or 'that' laggy? Doubt some of that very much!

For someone lucky enough to own both cars in the first place, I would of expected a review that compared both cars to both their strengths and weaknesses. 

All the same though, the review made me laugh a lot


----------



## NISFAN (Oct 11, 2003)

I think the point is, if you take average Joe, and sit him in a GTR or EVO and tell him to do a couple of laps round a track, he will post faster times in the EVO. 
The EVO is more predictable than the GTR, so you feel more confident taking it to the limit, it feels like a 4WD car should feel, understeery if pushed, but pretty damn neutral. 
The GTR in terms of mid corner grip, is fine, where it falls down is in the rapid direction change area, or either going on or coming off the power whilst cornering. The GTR is not a neutral handling car, and doesn't take kindly to being upset mid corner.

For example, take a Subaru WRX on a 30m diameter skid pan circle (dry). Starting off at a constant speed, if you floor it, totally come off the power, or see saw between the two, the car carries on round the corner without too much fuss. A little bit of yaw change, and a small amount of corrective steering input required, due to change in yaw, but no problems. 
Eventually when the speed gets too high for the corner the Scooby will understeer. Come off the throttle and it will come back on line in an instant. All very progressive and predictable.

Do the same in a GTR, and it's way different. When flooring it, you get instant understeer initially, then you get oversteer without doing anything else. At this point you think, aaah now I can just straighten up the wheels and it will now just 4wheel drift like a hard pushed 4WD? No it doesn't, you have to opposite lock it to bring it back, sometimes even back off the throttle. Too much or too little steering input, or the wrong timing, and you'll be heading out of the circle backwards. It is just not predictable, and always edgy. Be smooth and corner at one throttle setting, and it will fly round the circle no issues, but upset it, and it will be you who gets upset, when it spins out in protest.
The other thing is, due (I think) to the electronics interferance, the above behaviour differs dependant on a number of factors, so it is impossible to learn to predict 'exactly' what it is going to do. The handling in the wet for example is different to dry, etc, etc. So it's not like you can really learn it. 

De Hicas it, and fit one of those torque split controllers (or if it were me, fit a torsen transfer mechanism), and it may well become far more predictable. You may read that as boring, but I would read it as fast.


----------



## davewilkins (Jun 30, 2001)

NISFAN said:


> De Hicas it, and fit one of those torque split controllers (or if it were me, fit a torsen transfer mechanism), and it may well become far more predictable. You may read that as boring, but I would read it as fast.


....and I have and I would not say that it is boring.

I like the examples. Spot on Nisfan


----------

