# Skyline GT-R or Nissan GT-R??



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

This below is pretty much how I felt after driving a MY14 and my BCNR33 back to back :-






Anyone else agree?

opcorn:


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

K66 SKY said:


> *
> Anyone else agree?
> 
> opcorn:*


I guess not then.....:lamer:


----------



## Alex C (Aug 10, 2005)

Also just watched that, very topical as I cant get the R35 itch out of my head, particularly as the value of the Skylines creep up (and mine being a very good example like I see being sold for £30K).

Quite a few went from GTr back to R34 so you're not alone in for sure.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Alex C said:


> *very topical as I cant get the R35 itch out of my head,
> 
> Quite a few went from GTr back to R34 so you're not alone in for sure.*


Have you driven an R35 Alex C? As good as they are performance-wise, I sadly felt that the Nissan GT-R hadn't moved the goal posts far enough from the Skyline GT-R's for me to lust after and want one.


----------



## Alex C (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes but in between a 3 years break from Skylines so not easy to compare at this time. I loved the R35 also, was expecting it to feel too modern and sterile in the pursuit of speed like many a fast Audi etc but it felt much more lively and interactive albeit a a much greater rate of knots than Skylines take to get the same connection. Not as much fun in general driving conditions though I agree. 

My Skyline is a bit of a pain on weekend longer trips with the family due to the quite high NVH, so an R35 ticks most boxes for me especially if one (e.g Stage 2 2011 as an example) could conceivably be had for my car + ~£10K. That seems good value in purely logical terms but as most Skyline owners know emotion is often greater than logic! need to drive a 35 again I think to make my mind up.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

I went R33, R32 to R35 and back again.

2012 Litchfield stage 1 GT-R is all you realistically need if you can drive it 100% to its limits - it really is a fantastic car despite its weight on track and on the road - once you ditch the tramlining runflats.

However, there***8217;s something more pure and engaging (if considerably slower) in old Skyline GT-R***8217;s.

That***8217;s one of the main reasons I went back to an R32.

I***8217;ll also add, the R32 is a complete s**t if you have children and car seats, yet struggling to fit the family in well also adds to more of an engaging experience than the ***8220;plug and play***8221; isofix of an R35.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

K66 SKY said:


> Have you driven an R35 Alex C? As good as they are performance-wise, I sadly felt that the Nissan GT-R hadn't moved the goal posts far enough from the Skyline GT-R's for me to lust after and want one.


Are you for real?

0-60 in 2.7 seconds, 196 MPH top speed.

They destroy old school Skylines mate, even modified ones.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

I guess if you didn't use the car as a daily the 34 would be ok but the 35 is just a better daily use car imho. 
Very different cars to compare-The 34 would be amazing to own but the 35 would tick more boxes for me


----------



## davew (Apr 28, 2003)

Well Ive owned nearly all LOL! My love now sits with my CBA R35, it's kind of the R32 of Skylines. Raw feeling drive compared with the later models, plenty of potential without going crazy and its sooooooo easy to use.

Thats my choice of the moment.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

*Can of Worms time again!*



Trev said:


> *Are you for real?*


Last time I checked, Yes I am....



Trev said:


> *0-60 in 2.7 seconds, 196 MPH top speed.*














Trev said:


> *They destroy old school Skylines mate, even modified ones.*


Only in a Game of Top Trumps.....



















We've already been down this well trodden path Trev :- 

https://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/380298-so-600hp-gtr-faster-then-600hp-skyline-gtr-2.html

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the context of _"Destroy"_ here because 1990 RB26 old technology verses 2008 VR38 stuff from Nissan almost two decades newer which results in only a 1.1 second difference to 60mph _(poxy old skool Manual v's a fancy Automatic transmission)_ and just 5mph less Top Speed from a 1996 R33 when directly compared to the larger capacity 3.8L V6 doesn't sound like a true definition of destroyed performance-wise to me!

To destroy something when used in a conversation to describe a performance advantage of one vehicle over another of similar ilk suggests to me at least that it was so much more powerful that when the better Cars potential was fully utilised, The Driver of the lesser of the two Cars just wouldn't know in which direction the other machine had gone. 

_It didn't look like that 2019 50th Anniversary Nissan GT-R would leave that Bayside Blue BNR34 for dead in that You Tube Video either._

Oh well, JM2PW! :double-finger:




davew said:


> *Well Ive owned nearly all LOL! My love now sits with my CBA R35, it's kind of the R32 of Skylines. Raw feeling drive compared with the later models, plenty of potential without going crazy and its sooooooo easy to use.*


Kinda proves the point. Larger Car exterior-wise but way smaller for its Occupants on the interior than the R33, Easy to drive at nine tenths fast pace with little or no skill required, Excellent Brakes, Similarly great Steering but uninspiring dull sounding V6 engine. Its got some poke granted but now missing the evocativeness of the earlier raw Racecars for the Road. 



davew said:


> *Thats my choice of the moment.*


That's great Dave! Who know's, Maybe when I get much older I too might fall for the charms of the R35 GT-R as well??

Anyway, Gets People talking on the Forum, Doesn't it! LOL!


----------



## SKNAM (Nov 30, 2018)

To keep the debate going :chuckle: ......… I'm with Trev on the "destroy" bit performance wise. A stock mid-90's R33 V Spec might only be a second (or two) slower to 60 than a stock '08 R35, but that gap opens to about 5 sec by 100, and widens massively more (20 seconds+) by the time speed hits 150 opcorn:


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

I also would say you have to work hard at an RB26 to keep up with the 35, which is in comparison completely effortless, which is why it feels so much faster.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

SKNAM said:


> *but that gap opens to about 5 sec by 100, and widens massively more (20 seconds+) by the time speed hits 150 opcorn:*


Yeah, Yeah....Tis something we all experience daily on Our Trips to Work or when we pop to Tesco's!




tonigmr2 said:


> *I also would say you have to work hard at an RB26 to keep up with the 35, which is in comparison completely effortless, which is why it feels so much faster.*


And dare I say, Less evocative as a result?:nervous:


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

The R35 is faster and yes it is a better daily driver but I have a few issues with it:

1. The DCT of the R35 is an early 6 speed variant that is kind of fragile and not very refined even now. No manual transmission either. Obviously the manual going away is the way the GT-R goes but still a disappointment.

2. The VR38DETT is a solid engine but no inline 6 is a sign of the time when it was in development. The world has gone back to inline 6s with downsizing to I4 in most models. Honestly speaking after driving something with an RB26 the smoothness of an inline 6 is hard to give up. A VR38 is just naturally going to vibrate more even though the R35 is better insulated.

3. Packaging. The R35 interior is just small relative to its massive size. The rear seats are not usable because the transaxle is right under it. The engine is very high up compared to the R32/R33/R34. The weight distribution is barely better than the R33 despite an aluminum block V6. The chassis is definitely much more rigid and crashworthy but 52/48 weight distribution while a BMW 340i xDrive achieves the same with a longer I6 tells me it wasn't really worth it outside of engine commonality with their transverse platforms. Crashworthiness is not impossible to achieve with an I6 either, BMW does great with small overlap crashes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjXg9a7guA0

4. Suspension/weight. The R35 is just rock hard if you want it to actually compete with modern sports cars, and not very fast if you want it to be reasonably comfortable. The R33 and R34 are not that stiff even in VSpec form and were competitive despite this.

The R33 GT-R proves a lot of this out, it's not as wide but otherwise roughly the same size as the R35 GT-R and can legitimately seat 4 people instead of 2 adults and 2 very small children.

I think the R36 GT-R and next generation Skyline is where Nissan needs to fully embrace I4T + I6T as their new longitudinal engine strategy, with I4 + I4T as their transverse engine lineup. Inline 4s can deliver 300 horsepower now, it's not like a FWD platform can actually handle much more than that with good road manners.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

K66 SKY said:


> _It didn't look like that 2019 50th Anniversary Nissan GT-R would leave that Bayside Blue BNR34 for dead in that You Tube Video either._



That was the one thing that wasn't tested on the video which is a shame as it would of been good to see the difference between the 2. I think the 35 with the torque difference would of pulled away comfortably at the start and gradually increased the gap between the 2 over the distance.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

TREG said:


> That was the one thing that wasn't tested on the video which is a shame as it would of been good to see the difference between the 2. I think the 35 with the torque difference would of pulled away comfortably at the start and gradually increased the gap between the 2 over the distance.


I think that's not in doubt. 3.8L vs 2.6-2.8L of displacement, most RBs don't have any form of VVT, most RBs have absolutely archaic fuel injectors, no tricks like direct injection to run more timing iso-AFR. The turbos are super old tech as well. It had some advanced technology like sodium filled exhaust valves and oil cooled pistons for its time but tons of engines have those kinds of tech these days.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

K66 SKY said:


> Last time I checked, Yes I am....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bit of a tit aren’t you.

I’ve owned them all (except an R34) so I’d say I’m pretty well placed to say I know what I’m talking about.

Top Trumps? Yeah, be immature if you like but facts and figures are just that, FACTS.

If you think chucking a near 1,800 KG 600 BHP GT-R around on track with all the driving aids OFF is easy or for “old people” then you’re a bigger **** than you’ve already made yourself look like.

Over and out.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

*Want Your Dummy back now You've thrown Your Toys out of the Pram Trev??*



Trev said:


> *Bit of a tit aren’t you.*


ROTFLMAOPMSL, And You're not I suppose?:chuckle:



Trev said:


> *I’ve owned them all (except an R34) so I’d say I’m pretty well placed to say I know what I’m talking about.*


Ooooo, So? Still not going to k1$$ your ar$e Trev....:double-finger:



Trev said:


> *Top Trumps? Yeah, be immature if you like but facts and figures are just that, FACTS.*


Was going too anyway But Thanks for permission to be immature!



Dan Parker said:


> *This is true.
> Here's some factory comparisons
> 
> Nismo R34 Z-tune @ Tsukuba - 1.01.15 (500hp)
> ...


Facts!:bowdown1:



Trev said:


> *If you think chucking a near 1,800 KG 600 BHP GT-R around on track with all the driving aids OFF is easy or for “old people” then you’re a bigger **** than you’ve already made yourself look like.
> *


27:40 to 33:50....

zt_VW9MXpHw&t=2339s

I'm sure You are a much better driver than that Tsuchiya bloke.:blahblah:



Trev said:


> *Over and out.*


Bye, Don't let the Forum door hit You on the a$$ on Your way out!:wavey:


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

*thread lock impending*


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Parker View Post
This is true.
Here's some factory comparisons

Nismo R34 Z-tune @ Tsukuba - 1.01.15 (500hp)

R35 GT-R Nismo @ Tsukuba - 1.01.32 (600hp)


Which post were these figures found from?
I am amazed there is less than half a second in it?


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

I smell troll.


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

K66 is a originals enthusiast, let***8217;s not beat him up too much for that. I greatly preferred driving my R33 but there is no question that my R35 is faster in every respect.

I would prefer to own An r33 or r34, but the r35 is faster and more practical.


----------



## David (Apr 25, 2003)

tonigmr2 said:


> I also would say you have to work hard at an RB26 to keep up with the 35, which is in comparison completely effortless, which is why it feels so much faster.


Interesting I have completely the opposite impression. I have never driven a R35 but was taken out in one at Bruntingthorpe a few years ago and found the experience completely underwhelming. It was fast but I thought it felt slow even through it was 20mph faster my r33, the V6 also sounded rubbish.

The complete opposite to my first r32 experience which prompted me buying my r33

Up to that point I was planning an R35, after it I bought my project R32


----------



## Blobbish (May 20, 2019)

Driving some cars its hard to really get a feel for the speed you are doing. I find that the 35 handles the feel of speed very well. There is no real engine sound in the cabin and even with the Miltek on I find the exhaust very quiet.

Compare this to the S/C 370z I had which was much noisier in the cabin, the feel of speed was heightened. Is this the fault of the 35, i dont think so. Its meant for that cross between speed and touring. I often look down and think, oops.

Once upon a time I borrowed by brothers Rover 214i. That thing scared the jeebies out of me at 30mph.........


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

TREG said:


> *Which post were these figures found from?
> I am amazed there is less than half a second in it?*


The same Topic I posted up earlier in this very Thread :-

https://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/380298-so-600hp-gtr-faster-then-600hp-skyline-gtr-9.html

The one where I also posted this scan from Evo magazine on the 10th August 2015....










Which you now cannot read because of Photobucket.




Tinkerbell said:


> *I smell troll.*


Says the regularly triggered name calling snowflake....:bowdown1:




Simonh said:


> *K66 is a originals enthusiast, let’s not beat him up too much for that. *


Thanks very much for those kind words Simonh!

_I'm just not going to be bullied into some sort of submissive silence by tinkerbell and His pathetic rants or ridiculous personal slurs just because I don't happen to be an R35 disciple and 110% agree with Him._




David said:


> *Interesting I have completely the opposite impression. I have never driven a R35 but was taken out in one at Bruntingthorpe a few years ago and found the experience completely underwhelming. It was fast but I thought it felt slow even through it was 20mph faster my r33, the V6 also sounded rubbish.
> 
> The complete opposite to my first r32 experience which prompted me buying my r33*


Thanks for posting that David, I couldn't agree with you more!



Blobbish said:


> *Once upon a time I borrowed by brothers Rover 214i. That thing scared the jeebies out of me at 30mph.........*


WOW! That takes me back to my Apprentice days when we had to use the Company's 214LSi's and 216GSi's as pool Cars, Scary Motors indeed!:chuckle:


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

Clearly your some kind of blind illiterate tool.

If I was such a big fan boy of R35***8217;s why did go back and own an R32?

Now f*** off and take your poncy memes with you.


----------



## FRRACER (Jun 23, 2013)

I recently had a chance driving the M4 GTS which was incredible from a driving point of view over an R35 which feels heavy and numb even though it***8217;s fast.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

A Good thread. Its good to see that people have got their own opinions. 
Mine is this having owned a 33 for ten years and driven my brother's 35 recently at speed and normally. 
Both are good cars. The 35 is more comfortable and feels more capable. The gearbox is so quick, and the power band seems constant. The interior feels well put together and it turns heads. The only thing is; for all the performance, there is something missing. Some kind of feeling that more is actually less somewhere but you cant put your finger on it until you get back into a skyline. 
Once back in the skyline you realise, its actually more fun. It***8217;s more involved; same reason BMW seem to be going back to manual gearboxes on some of their M's (as an example not affiliated to GTR***8217;s ) and considering the skylines are platformed on late 1980's tech; they are still good even now. 
So for me, as a driver's car the skyline gets my vote. (for a second car that is and not a daily)


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

This thread takes me back to the ***8220;skylines vs GTR showdown***8221; back in 2015. 
That was a brilliant day.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

FRRACER said:


> I recently had a chance driving the M4 GTS which was incredible from a driving point of view over an R35 which feels heavy and numb even though it’s fast.


Is the M4 GTS really better than an R35? I've driven an F80 M3 standard (2015, pre-LCI) with DCT for quite some time and I was not very impressed. The exhaust is overwhelmingly loud, the car actually sounds pretty good at maybe 7/10ths throttle but at WOT it just goes full lawnmower.

The steering is dead regardless of setting, comfort mode is best IMO.

It is very stiff, even on comfort mode. On the edge of what I'd consider to be acceptable in a car. The M4 GTS is supposedly even stiffer which is just nuts to me. The DCT is good though, maybe not flawlessly smooth like Porsche PDK/VW DSG but still very good and direct.

I didn't like how tall the hood was. Pedestrian safety + the top mounted charge cooler really makes for a super tall hood. Feels like I can't really see where the hood ends even when I adjust the seat as high as it can go.

Also the usual crank hub concerns really makes it feel like you shouldn't try to actually push the car very hard.

Fuel economy is exceptional for what it is though. Keep it off boost and it delivers 28 mpg US/33 mpg UK.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

Yes I***8217;ve seen many recent reviews about the vague steering on modern M cars.

That***8217;s one thing you can***8217;t label any model of GT-R on being!


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

I think that we are at a point in technology where we have the choice. What is ***8220;better***8221; as a drivers perspective; being fast and comfortable or better being fast but with the feeling of being fast?


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Tinkerbell said:


> *Clearly your some kind of blind illiterate tool.
> 
> If I was such a big fan boy of R35’s why did go back and own an R32?
> 
> Now f*** off and take your poncy memes with you.*


Trying once again to show off your eloquent grasp of English vocabulary Cupcake?!:chuckle:



Jimbostir said:


> *A Good thread. Its good to see that people have got their own opinions.
> *


How very true, Anything that gets people regularly posting up on the Forum once more has got to be a good thing IMHO!



Jimbostir said:


> *The only thing is; for all the performance, there is something missing. Some kind of feeling that more is actually less somewhere but you cant put your finger on it until you get back into a skyline.
> Once back in the skyline you realise, its actually more fun. It’s more involved; *


Yup! I once shocked a Nissan Salesman by saying virtually the exact same speech as this Jimbostir when I tried a MY14 GT-R. He then called over a few of His Colleagues and then we all had a lengthy discussion of both the good and some bad points too. 

Eventually I was asked if I'd eventually trade up from my Skyline to one and my answer was No. To this day I don't think they understood that the new generation of GT-R's are missing the originals character and especially its soul! 

Without these unique traits, Desirability _(of Ownership)_ just wasn't there for me.

JM2PW!


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

K66 SKY said:


> Eventually I was asked if I'd eventually trade up from my Skyline to one and my answer was No. To this day I don't think they understood that the new generation of GT-R's are missing the originals character and especially its soul!
> 
> 
> JM2PW!


For me Nissan made 2 mistakes with the 35.

Fitting runflats on the car did not give it the correct feel for UK roads. Yes it will handle better at high speed, but the car feels like it is sat on top of the road rather than dug into it ready to grip. I could live with them but knew there was no tyre that suited the car perfectly.

Secondly the size of the wheels are too big-yes they look good but in my opinion this has not helped with the handling or feel through the steering wheel. 

I recall the time I changed from the 17" wheels I had on my 33 to 18" to upgrade the brakes and always felt the car didn't feel as planted after that.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

K66 SKY said:


> How very true, Anything that gets people regularly posting up on the Forum once more has got to be a good thing IMHO!


So true. Keep the forum going!


----------



## GTS20s (Oct 7, 2008)

Ive a 98 r33 gtr spec 3 and a TT supra (the supra is a factory manual n/a converted to TT). Ive had both cars a long time.

I had considered selling both to get an R35. I can't put my finger on what appeals to me so much about the r35 but i have a gut feeling id regret it afterwards.


----------



## Jimbostir (Dec 2, 2008)

It***8217;s your choice...


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

Have you considered renting an R35 for a week? I think that would be long enough to get a better idea for whether you really would like living with one.


----------



## GTS20s (Oct 7, 2008)

What kind of value would be put on the two cars i wonder? 

Gtr is a 98 spec 3 with 175k kms. I had it rebuilt by tdp a good few years back, r34 turbos, forged pistons, mines clocks, mines front pipe, titanium exhaust and it made 444whp (484fwhp). Nearly new Rf1's 18x10.5.

Supra is 94 sz with 135k kms. It has basically a stock 2jzgte vvti in it. Trd shocks, hks exhaust, fmic. Its running near stock boost so id day its around 350fwhp. Manual 5 speed. I did a full service including wp, tb etc on the car.


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

joshuaho96 said:


> Have you considered renting an R35 for a week? I think that would be long enough to get a better idea for whether you really would like living with one.


Personally yes I have.

But the fever broke and i got better.

I have a 34 V-Spec and would not, in any conceivable universe, swap to a 35.
Too big.
Too heavy.
Too UGLY. (the kink in the rear roof line makes me want to hurl)
Too Renault.

(thought i'd get in before the thread gets locked)
Have a great/night day all!


----------



## GTS20s (Oct 7, 2008)

Ares said:


> joshuaho96 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you considered renting an R35 for a week? I think that would be long enough to get a better idea for whether you really would like living with one.
> ...


How did you find it to drive compared to the r34?


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

GTS20s said:


> What kind of value would be put on the two cars i wonder?
> 
> Gtr is a 98 spec 3 with 175k kms. I had it rebuilt by tdp a good few years back, r34 turbos, forged pistons, mines clocks, mines front pipe, titanium exhaust and it made 444whp (484fwhp). Nearly new Rf1's 18x10.5.
> 
> Supra is 94 sz with 135k kms. It has basically a stock 2jzgte vvti in it. Trd shocks, hks exhaust, fmic. Its running near stock boost so id day its around 350fwhp. Manual 5 speed. I did a full service including wp, tb etc on the car.


To me they'd stack up:
Supra - between 15-20k NZD. Would be more if RZ spec.
Skyline - 30-35k NZD. With the investor bubble in the US the smart money for all Skyline GT-R owners is to find a tuning shop in the States who want a project for a promo/shop demo car. You'll get up to about 50% more out of a US buyer because they haven't been able to have them previously.
Plus the bonus that you won't see it at the lights and have the regret that comes with the "i shouldn't have sold it" feels. The 33 was always the less popular of the Skyline's, in spite of it being markedly better than the 32 and more aerodynamic than the 34. To me it's the best option for someone wanting an affordable zilla 

Just my two cents (pents?) worth


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

GTS20s said:


> How did you find it to drive compared to the r34?


Boring.
Unimaginative.
The interior instrumentation gives you a lot of information but you can't really do much with it.

A great and competent GT car, sure but i don't trust the gearbox in Auckland's traffic (which is always crap nowadays) and to me it feels too heavy.

I love my old datto to bits though and that's where the big problem really is.

(I tried to insert an image here but Drive is being a ****)


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Ares said:


> Personally yes I have.
> 
> But the fever broke and i got better.
> 
> ...



The 34 is a good car but on a track it struggled to prove itself against the 33!

All modern cars have got bigger mainly down to the safety aspect so nothing new there.

The 35, too Renault?! LOL-No


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

TREG said:


> The 34 is a good car but on a track it struggled to prove itself against the 33!


Yup true, the 33 (as I stated) is more aerodynamic than either the 32 or 34.
I said that though, so unsure why you've said that again.
You illude to it but don't back it up - so let me help you out.
The 32's bridge to gantry time was 8:22
The 33's was 8:01
The 34's was unrecorded as it was reported as slower than the 33.
If you're going to troll - at least do your homework.

The 34 is my preference for many reasons, including its getrag transmission that the previous generations didn't have, the look and the engine factoring in as well.



TREG said:


> All modern cars have got bigger mainly down to the safety aspect so nothing new there.


Er, yes? They have? It's why I don't like them?
More-over the old adage of "Add lightness" holds true to literally every form of motorsport and performance vehicle. It's better all round for a car to be lighter with less power than a two tonne behemoth with a big engine - better stopping, better acceleration, handling, weight balance...



TREG said:


> The 35, too Renault?! LOL-No


Er, yes? The vehicle was released after the merger and if you look at the lines of, say a Meganne RS they are very similar. Not to the same extent as the new Supra is a BMW but it's along the same lines.

So with your post's glaring inadequacies addressed - I notice you never said the 35 looks better.
At the end of the day, the car i want to see in my garage is my purple 34 V-spec.
Not a 35. Not a 33. Not a 34 V-Spec II Nur.

I love my car and, to me at least, nothing comes close and nothing ever will.
Here's a clicky thing to show why.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

I really doubt the R34 was slower than the R33. Aero was comparable, the R33 didn't have the front/rear diffuser of the R34 which reduced drag. Maybe the tall final drive didn't help at 3.545 but the RB26 is kind of a dog below ~4000 RPM, the getrag 6 speed helps to keep it in the powerband. The R34 is actually true zero/negative lift in the front end whereas the stock R33 is just near zero front lift. The R33 also doesn't have a lot of the chassis reinforcements that the R34 got.

The R33 is theoretically capable of matching an R34 if you retrofit all of the R34 bits but that's theoretical, not a production car. Finding a Getrag V160 these days is difficult and they're quite expensive as well.

These are all old cars anyways, I don't see the value in trying to do this kind of benchracing when a 991 turbo will leave all of these cars in the dust.


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

LOL Porsche's try it on quite regularly.
My old GT-t could spank them but that had a serious amount of work.
My R doesn't even break a sweat (GT-3's notwithstanding) it has no trouble out-pacing Porsche's, BMW's, Audi's, Merc's and Mustangs that try it on (also Commodores and Falcons but I don't think you guys really have those over there)

Less about the power it has, more about the power it can put down, again ATTESA was years ahead of other stuff.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

The 991 turbo has an AWD system significantly more advanced than what shipped in the 90s era GT-Rs, the rear wheel steering is also more advanced as well. It's about as fast as a 991 GT3, it's slower in corners due to the extra weight but makes up for it on corner exit + straights. The core actuator isn't that different but the control system is significantly more advanced.

It is also significantly faster than an R35 at this point by virtue of the extra power, less weight, and overall more refined design.

Modern cars are just more capable, it's not really in doubt. I think any attempt to keep these cars up to par with the latest thing in performance is kind of pointless.

I'm not saying you shouldn't modernize the car in some ways though, it's not a painting. I'm just saying trying to make it beat a 991 Turbo or a similarly modern rocket sled is going to compromise the car for not much reason when you could just buy a C7 ZR1 or 991 Turbo/GT2 and have a crazy amount of performance in a reliable, relatively comfortable package.


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

Yeah - all in all i always say that my car isn't as fast as newer lower spec offerings.
As Barney Stinson says:
"New is always better"

Getting back to the OP:
I'll hand on heart say that stock for stock the 35 is a better car in many many ways.
I would still choose my dirty RB any day of the week.
XD


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Ares said:


> If you're going to troll - at least do your homework.
> 
> So with your post's glaring inadequacies addressed - I notice you never said the 35 looks better.




I've been here long enough to see a Troll-Pot kettle black I think they say:chuckle:

In all honesty I don't think the 35 looks better than the 34, but equally I don't think the 34 is the better looking of the 2 cars as they are completely different to each other. 
The 2 models really don't compare at all-You either want a modern car with all the toys,handling,comfort or a 34 with its own unique look.

To me the 34 looks dated now but it would do as car styling has moved on, with more rounded car bodies and safer build quality- For myself blue was the best colour for the 34.

As for the 35 looking like a Renault, I can't see that but you are entitled to an opinion even if its wrong:chuckle:


----------



## Cris (Sep 17, 2007)

joshuaho96 said:


> I really doubt the R34 was slower than the R33. Aero was comparable, the R33 didn't have the front/rear diffuser of the R34 which reduced drag. Maybe the tall final drive didn't help at 3.545 but the RB26 is kind of a dog below ~4000 RPM, the getrag 6 speed helps to keep it in the powerband. The R34 is actually true zero/negative lift in the front end whereas the stock R33 is just near zero front lift. The R33 also doesn't have a lot of the chassis reinforcements that the R34 got.
> 
> The R33 is theoretically capable of matching an R34 if you retrofit all of the R34 bits but that's theoretical, not a production car. Finding a Getrag V160 these days is difficult and they're quite expensive as well.
> 
> These are all old cars anyways, I don't see the value in trying to do this kind of benchracing when a 991 turbo will leave all of these cars in the dust.


I think that Nissan had painted themselves into a corner. The record setting R33 was certainly running extra boost and if my memory serves special tyres. Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.

I guess if they did the same to the R34 to get a better time it would have too much focus and perhaps too many questions asked.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

Cris said:


> I think that Nissan had painted themselves into a corner. The record setting R33 was certainly running extra boost and if my memory serves special tyres. Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.
> 
> I guess if they did the same to the R34 to get a better time it would have too much focus and perhaps too many questions asked.


Aki Itoh has taken some photos of the car that set the record. The muffler looks similar to stock but it's obvious from the photos it has a 3 inch exhaust or so. There's also extra oil coolers and a 300 kph speedo.

I think given how non-standard the car is it wouldn't be a far leap to guess that they cranked the boost to 1.2 bar on those fragile ceramic turbos and put the grippiest street legal tires they could find on it. And race spec brake pads/fluid. I'm honestly a little skeptical that the suspension is actually stock on it.

The R34's target time was 10 seconds faster than the R33. I suspect it came close but also needed similar modifications to do it, which is probably why they didn't announce a time.

I think the Japanese were much more cavalier about tuning up press cars in those days than they are now. Best Motoring tends to show this, the car at release is seemingly incredibly quick but in practice a few years down the line the performance at Tsukuba tended to be a second or two worse in time attack.


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

Cris said:


> Dirk Schoysman (SP?) talks about it in an interview.


I have spoken to Dirk about it a few times and interviewed him for the old GTROC magazine. 




joshuaho96 said:


> The muffler looks similar to stock but it's obvious from the photos it has a 3 inch exhaust or so. There's also extra oil coolers and a 300 kph speedo.
> 
> I think given how non-standard the car is it wouldn't be a far leap to guess that they cranked the boost to 1.2 bar on those fragile ceramic turbos and put the grippiest street legal tires they could find on it. And race spec brake pads/fluid. I'm honestly a little skeptical that the suspension is actually stock on it.


Said it many times, it's rather moot. Best motoring did an 8:01 in a stock car, only 2 seconds slower than Dirk.
The guesstimate list of modifications and boost gets larger every time a thread like this pops up. 




joshuaho96 said:


> The R34's target time was 10 seconds faster than the R33. I suspect it came close but also needed similar modifications to do it, which is probably why they didn't announce a time.


It's got less to do with the 33 and more to do with 996 GT3 which was comfortably in the 7:40s. The GT-Rs raison d'etre was to 'out-Porsche Porsche'. 34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded.


----------



## Spiidfriik (Sep 9, 2015)

I dont like how the R35 looks. But shure id like to have one, given its tuned beyond 1500hp. It is for shure one of the most capable platforms for super performance. Unbeatable for the money i think.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

moleman said:


> Said it many times, it's rather moot. Best motoring did an 8:01 in a stock car, only 2 seconds slower than Dirk.
> The guesstimate list of modifications and boost gets larger every time a thread like this pops up.


At the very least we have visual confirmation of a different exhaust and oil cooler. I am a little doubtful that the Best Motoring R33 was actually stock. You can see from the video alone that it has the 300 kph speedo.



moleman said:


> It's got less to do with the 33 and more to do with 996 GT3 which was comfortably in the 7:40s. The GT-Rs raison d'etre was to 'out-Porsche Porsche'. 34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded.


The 996 Turbo and GT3 are all reported in the 7:50 range and the 997 Turbo/GT3 in the 7:40 range. I don't think the GT-R has ever been a serious competitor to the 911 GT3, the drivetrain choices + tuning of the car in general has always suggested that the 911 Turbo is the more accurate comparison point.

The 996 Turbo was a clearly superior car stock to stock, the R34 needed the "R1" package from Nismo to really come close.


----------



## moleman (Jun 3, 2002)

joshuaho96 said:


> You can see from the video alone that it has the 300 kph speedo.


Of course. It would hit the stopper most of the way around the Nordschleife otherwise.

All that matters is


moleman said:


> 34 failed where 32/33/35 succeeded


 which is likely why no official time.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

moleman said:


> Of course. It would hit the stopper most of the way around the Nordschleife otherwise.


The reason why I mention it is because I have not seen that 300 kph speedo anywhere else. Which makes me think they actually used the same car that Schoysman did.

I don't think anyone is running a stock car at this point, it's likely that just a few relatively light modifications would make an R33 capable of running the time that it did but it's important I think to set the scale appropriately.



moleman said:


> All that matters is which is likely why no official time.


Fair enough, the R34 is still undoubtedly the fastest of the 3 second generation GT-Rs though. I'm personally not that interested in the R34 but I think we should be honest when we discuss these things. The extra rigidity, improved aero, and 6 speed help significantly. Is it worth double what the R33s are going for? I think that's a personal question.


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

Er, the 300km speedo was fitted to the V-Spec II's from factory.
The Nismo variant my V-Spec (NOT II) has is 320kph and was installed as a factory option instead of the factory 180kph speedo.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out there. 
The 34 was NOT the fastest RB GT-R - the 33 was more aerodynamic as I've previously stated and didn't have its time recorded because it was allegedly slower than the 33.

The 34 is more rigid compared to the 33 BUT this is true from the 32 to 33 as well, with reported figures stating that the 33 is 100% more rigid than the 32.
In fact, the biggest advantage the 34 did have was in the gearbox department as the six speed allow you to better control rpm through cornering.

All up this is an argument that boils down to personal taste - to me I love my 34 and will happily say that whilst it's not as fast as a lot of 35's out there, it still makes me smile when i see it and drive it and that can't happen with it's younger but fuglier, fatter little brother. 

PS: I hate the roofline of the R35 and literally nothing seems to fix it. Not even the fancy R50 concept helps it out.


----------



## Ares (Jul 9, 2013)

Found one!
Check out the images here to see what I mean about the instrumentation!


----------



## Fuel Performance (Aug 31, 2010)

R35 all day long


----------



## SKNAM (Nov 30, 2018)

Ares said:


> I hate the roofline of the R35 and literally nothing seems to fix it. Not even the fancy R50 concept helps it out


I really like the roofline (especially the rear pillars) and think its one of the best style bits on the R35, along with the bonnet and the flared front wings.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> I really doubt the R34 was slower than the R33. Aero was comparable, the R33 didn't have the front/rear diffuser of the R34 which reduced drag. Maybe the tall final drive didn't help at 3.545 but the RB26 is kind of a dog below ~4000 RPM, the getrag 6 speed helps to keep it in the powerband. The R34 is actually true zero/negative lift in the front end whereas the stock R33 is just near zero front lift. The R33 also doesn't have a lot of the chassis reinforcements that the R34 got.
> 
> The R33 is theoretically capable of matching an R34 if you retrofit all of the R34 bits but that's theoretical, not a production car. Finding a Getrag V160 these days is difficult and they're quite expensive as well.*


Well joshuaho96....Back when Evo magazine was a very good automotive read, The October 1999 issue wrote this about the brand spanking new BNR34 :-










With the relevant bit of the article from that time being :-












John Barker said:


> *
> The Nürburgring still featured heavily in the development of the R34 but Nissan admits the R33 is quicker over a Lap.*


Outright pace was not the objective. 



Dirk Schoysman said:


> *
> "You can steer this car (R34) more on the throttle, So its even more fun"*


Fun it maybe, But faster (possibly due to its even heavier weight?!)...Apparently not. Long live the BCNR33!










HTH!


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

Ares said:


> Er, the 300km speedo was fitted to the V-Spec II's from factory.
> The Nismo variant my V-Spec (NOT II) has is 320kph and was installed as a factory option instead of the factory 180kph speedo.
> 
> Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't out there.
> ...


The R33 did not receive a 300 kph speedo like the one seen in the best motoring video, I've never seen it outside of the prototype that they used for the nurburgring. Maybe someone will dig up this cluster on yahoo auctions or something?

I'm aware of the Nur variants with 300 kph cluster but that was R34 only.



K66 SKY said:


> Well joshuaho96....Back when Evo magazine was a very good automotive read, The October 1999 issue wrote this about the brand spanking new BNR34 :-
> 
> With the relevant bit of the article from that time being :-
> 
> ...


I remain skeptical that the R34 was actually slower. Boost went up from 0.85 bar to 1 bar and the chassis got a little stiffer and aero a little better. Transmission got better as well. These are little things here and there.

I prefer the R33 btw, but I think it's important to be realistic about what these cars are. The R33 concept was really what Nissan should've shipped, a 500+ hp engine would've been completely insane for the 90s.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> The R33 did not receive a 300 kph speedo like the one seen in the best motoring video, I've never seen it outside of the prototype that they used for the nurburgring. Maybe someone will dig up this cluster on yahoo auctions or something?
> 
> I'm aware of the Nur variants with 300 kph cluster but that was R34 only.*


Nope, No polite way to put this but you are wrong joshuaho96.....










300kph Speedo Clusters were common in Japan especially in GTS-t's because the majority of BCNR33's with uprated Nismo Clusters had 320kph versions for their GT-R's instead!






Also Mines, Do-Luck, Tomei, etc, etc, etc all had their own versions of a 300kph & 320kph Clocks for sale for all models of the R33 Skylines with Vielside offering a quite insane 360kmh item for the ultimate performance connoisseur :-









Veilside 360km/h BCNR33 meter ultra rare!!!!


Ultra rare Veilside 360km/h combo meter for R33 GTR, in perfect like new condition. Once in life time opportunity to buy such a rare item. Price is fixed. 700 pounds shipped to UK (pay pal 4% extra)




www.gtr.co.uk





HTH!


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

K66 SKY said:


> Nope, No polite way to put this but you are wrong joshuaho96.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think some wires are crossed here, I'm referring specifically to this 300 kph cluster that I have not seen anywhere else:









This cluster I've only seen in the Best Motoring R33 nurburgring attempt + Aki's photos of the car that set the 7:59 time. There are other versions but usually branded with whatever tuner made it and often different font.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> I think some wires are crossed here, I'm referring specifically to this 300 kph cluster that I have not seen anywhere else:
> View attachment 257592
> 
> ...


The Cluster used on that car ultimately became the UKDM BCNR33 Clocks but was switched around to have MPH around the Outside and KM/H on the inside. 










Was available with both white and black faces on at least 120 vehicles here in the UK. 

HTH!


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> There are other versions but usually branded with whatever tuner made it and often different font.
> *


The more and more I look at Aki's photo, Those Clocks just look like the Factory Impul ones to me....










I've not seen this car in the flesh, So cannot say if these are the Nissan-Impul Clusters fitted to that car. 










Still not exactly special IMHO!


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

The point is more that the car that set the 7:59 time is likely similar in spec to what Kurosawa drove. It would be a strange coincidence for both of them to have been driving a car with a somewhat unique 300 km/h cluster with no identifying marks. So the 8:01 time he set was likely not done with a stock R33 GT-R VSpec.


----------



## SKNAM (Nov 30, 2018)

I think irrespective of the differences between the R33 and R34 times around the Nordschleife, which appears to be a few seconds from previous posts.......

As the Nordschliefe is about 13 miles long and the R35 clocked the following times:

7:26.70/(7:29:03 and 7:38) – 2009 GT-R/(Stock)

7:24.22/(7:34 and 7:36) – 2011 GT-R/(Stock)

7:19.01s - 2012 GT-R

7:08.69s - 2015 GT-R Nismo 

This would mean even the R33 would finish at least a mile behind the R35 (assuming the R33 did it in 8:01........... sobering thought


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> The point is more that the car that set the 7:59 time is likely similar in spec to what Kurosawa drove. It would be a strange coincidence for both of them to have been driving a car with a somewhat unique 300 km/h cluster with no identifying marks. So the 8:01 time he set was likely not done with a stock R33 GT-R VSpec.
> *


Ok then joshuaho96, Lets take the World famous Ring out of the equation then shall we! Have you ever heard about JARI...The Japan version of Millbrook's Vehicle Test Facility? 



HOME



Once again this snippet of Motoring Journalism was taken from an April 1999 Evo magazine....










Exactly when these Skyline's were brand new and :-












Peter Nunn said:


> *All right, How Fast? Authoritative test figures from Japan's "Car Graphic Magazine" taken at JARI (Japan's Millbrook) reveal the good - and bad - news. Bad news first. Testing V-Spec editions of R33 and R34, old car proved quicker from 0-60mph (4.3secs plays 4.7) and from 0-400meters, too (12.7secs plays 13.1).*


_Don't tell me...*DON'T tell me,* You still remain skeptical that the BNR34 could actually be slower in some cases than the older wobblier BCNR33....._

In this modern flakey NPC _"Reeeee"_ Culture/Society, Who needs Facts eh?! Personal opinions render everyone's factual discussion as moot.

JM2PW....


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

K66 SKY said:


> Ok then joshuaho96, Lets take the World famous Ring out of the equation then shall we! Have you ever heard about JARI...The Japan version of Millbrook's Vehicle Test Facility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Best Motoring's testing claims the R33 is slower than the R34 for the quarter mile. This is really not about "personal opinion". It literally would not make sense for an R34 to be slower than an R33 in a straight line considering that it has 6 closer ratios and the engine is running 1 bar of boost vs 0.85 bar in the R33. The 3.545 final drive slightly alters the calculus but the gear ratios of the V160 are different, in practice the 6 speed has shorter gearing in the first five gears and a longer 6th. Both hit 60 mph in 2nd gear as well. The weight difference is too small to matter here.



SKNAM said:


> I think irrespective of the differences between the R33 and R34 times around the Nordschleife, which appears to be a few seconds from previous posts.......
> 
> As the Nordschliefe is about 13 miles long and the R35 clocked the following times:
> 
> ...


I think the gap would narrow with more modern tires but there is the distinct possibility that the R33/R34 would just ventilate the block halfway through the run from oil starvation.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> Best Motoring's testing claims the R33 is slower than the R34 for the quarter mile. This is really not about "personal opinion". It literally would not make sense for an R34 to be slower than an R33 yadder, yadder,yadder....*


They also quote all Skyline GT-R's engine power as 276bhp - Which is a lie. 

They also say a BNR34's weight is 1560kgs (3439lbs) - Which again is another lie.

They call it Godzilla but only a BNR32 is worthy of carrying such a name....LOL!




joshuaho96 said:


> *The weight difference is too small to matter here.*


In the REAL World, The BCNR33's weighs more like 1600kgs and the replacement BNR34's sit at 1660kgs. I keep forgetting that a piffy 60kg difference is only a packet of crisps weight difference to an average American....





SKNAM said:


> *
> I think irrespective of the differences between the R33 and R34 times around the Nordschleife, which appears to be a few seconds from previous posts.......
> 
> As the Nordschliefe is about 13 miles long and the R35 clocked the following times:
> ...


Oh Dear! As a true R33 Fan Boy, I know I'm going to regret this.....Is joshuaho96 gonna use this against me??










To put things into perspective here, In 1999 there was the BNR34 N1 Race Spec which had around 500bhp from its twin turbo RB26. The Factory claimed only 450bhp output but guess what, Nissan LIED and Sandoh-san confirmed it was actually nearly 500bhp. Shock and Horror, Who'd have thought that when the Japanese came to official figures they'd downplay the results and fib!










Depending on who you believe _(Best Motoring's - 8:01 or Nissan's - 7:59 Official Ring Times)_ This means the newer Stock 350bhp Skyline GT-R at some point had done a 7:55 or a 7:52 Lap Time. _(Hi Iain -  Moleman always comes when you mention these Lap Times)_. Take another further 30 seconds off of these results for the 500bhp N1 Race Spec R34 and you get a 7:25 or a 7:22 figure after it had completed 180 plus turns of a 15.2 mile trek through the Eifel Mountains on the old Nurburgring.

With similar power to the stock 2009/2011 R35's, A Tuned R34 GTR is still miraculously in the same Ball-Park time-wise with the newer 3.8L V6 Nissan GT-R's that came out For Sale over a decade later. By your Own figures SKNAM, It took until 2015's 600bhp Nismo release to significantly improve on these 2.6L Straight Six N1 Race Spec times by more than just a couple of seconds. If that's considered massive progress, I'm utterly unimpressed. 

JM2PW!


----------



## G-Zilla (Jul 15, 2017)

K66 SKY said:


> They also quote all Skyline GT-R's engine power as 276bhp - Which is a lie.
> 
> They also say a BNR34's weight is 1560kgs (3439lbs) - Which again is another lie.
> 
> ...


Nah man no crisps, it's the big gulp. Every American I spoke to about Skylines thinks the R34 is the best because Paul Walker jumped a bridge with it and that the R33 is crappy whale. Love the US a lot, but they're gullible sadly.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

G-Zilla said:


> *
> Nah man no crisps, it's the big gulp. *


LMAO! Bet that's a small one too....



G-Zilla said:


> *
> Every American I spoke to about Skylines thinks the R34 is the best because Paul Walker jumped a bridge with it and that the R33 is crappy whale. *


Sadly so true. Even here the _"Chavvy Experts"_ don't realise the BNR34 Sibling shares so much of its actual DNA, Panels and mechanical parts with its far older BCNR33 Father its scary. I guess it really comes down to which version was the Top Dog Icon Dream Machine when You were celebrating ones Youth?! 












G-Zilla said:


> *
> Love the US a lot, but they're gullible sadly. *


Will be interesting to see what happens when the R34's reach the twenty five year Import age G-Zilla!


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

G-Zilla said:


> Nah man no crisps, it's the big gulp. Every American I spoke to about Skylines thinks the R34 is the best because Paul Walker jumped a bridge with it and that the R33 is crappy whale. Love the US a lot, but they're gullible sadly.


We will see how things go but I suspect, as do a number of US importers, that the R33 GT-R will be more popular than the R34 due to its additional interior room and lower price.

Personally speaking I've already had my R33 waiting in storage for a year now, it's undergoing some maintenance and restoration before being shipped to the US for CA emissions compliance work.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

joshuaho96 said:


> *
> Personally speaking I've already had my R33 waiting in storage for a year now, it's undergoing some maintenance and restoration before being shipped to the US for CA emissions compliance work.
> *


Hope you'll enjoy yours as much as I've enjoyed mine!


----------



## G-Zilla (Jul 15, 2017)

joshuaho96 said:


> We will see how things go but I suspect, as do a number of US importers, that the R33 GT-R will be more popular than the R34 due to its additional interior room and lower price.
> 
> Personally speaking I've already had my R33 waiting in storage for a year now, it's undergoing some maintenance and restoration before being shipped to the US for CA emissions compliance work.


Ah, the 10-15K registration sticker/CARB compliance. Also residing in commiefornia, but moving out soon. The CARB compliance will probably be gone by the time you import your R33 since President Trump (backed by many automakers) is suing CARB and the state of California for implementing emission standards the EPA is responsible. Mary Nichols is going on a meltdown just like Pelosi is, since her shares in Tesla will be of no use then. I agree to disagree, after seeing all the 32/33/34 generations at one cars and coffee, and so it seemed many of the people swarmed the R34 GTR like flies to a turd. A couple cars down was an R33 that sat all alone. I believe Sean Morris sold one of the midnight purple R34s for $150,000 no?


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

G-Zilla said:


> Ah, the 10-15K registration sticker/CARB compliance. Also residing in commiefornia, but moving out soon. The CARB compliance will probably be gone by the time you import your R33 since President Trump (backed by many automakers) is suing CARB and the state of California for implementing emission standards the EPA is responsible. Mary Nichols is going on a meltdown just like Pelosi is, since her shares in Tesla will be of no use then. I agree to disagree, after seeing all the 32/33/34 generations at one cars and coffee, and so it seemed many of the people swarmed the R34 GTR like flies to a turd. A couple cars down was an R33 that sat all alone. I believe Sean Morris sold one of the midnight purple R34s for $150,000 no?


There's no difference in cost for people at a car show/meet to look at an R32 or R33 vs an R34. There is a pretty big difference between buying an R33 and R34 GT-R. I think many people will realize that the R33 and R34 are basically the same cars give or take some small refinements that can and have been added to the R33s, Aki's car is probably the best example of how the R34 parts can be retrofitted to the R33 to make the car just as capable as, if not more so than the R34. On top of that you get more room in an R33 and the longer wheelbase which makes it more stable on expressways/highways.

On the topic of emissions the CARB/EPA fight is irrelevant to grey market import. This fight is entirely over new car emissions standards and fleet average fuel economy for new cars. Every state has a CARB equivalent that is primarily focused on implementing and enforcing federal EPA regulations, CARB is just unique in that they are setting their own emission standards and fleet average fuel economy standards due to their waiver in the clean air act. Many other states require smog every 2 years regardless of the age of the car just like California, California is just unique in that they mandate that you meet EPA new car emissions performance for the year of production regardless of the age of the car if it was made after 1974. The RB26 does not meet EPA standards for any car from 1989 to 2002. It lacks EGR, it lacks secondary air injection, it lacks VVT, the injectors are horrible for atomization. For 1996+ cars there is no OBD2 for the RB26 in any way, shape or form. Even if tomorrow Trump won his legal fight against CARB absolutely nothing would change on grey market imports for California.

I have spent a long time thinking about how to deal with these problems. Sean has given up on CA emissions compliance for the R34s and series 2/3 R33s to my knowledge. It is just too hard, too expensive to make OBD2 work and it is technically both a state and federal regulation to have OBD2 for 1996 or later year vehicles.


----------



## G-Zilla (Jul 15, 2017)

joshuaho96 said:


> On the topic of emissions the CARB/EPA fight is irrelevant to grey market import. This fight is entirely over new car emissions standards and fleet average fuel economy for new cars. Every state has a CARB equivalent that is primarily focused on implementing and enforcing federal EPA regulations, CARB is just unique in that they are setting their own emission standards and fleet average fuel economy standards due to their waiver in the clean air act. Many other states require smog every 2 years regardless of the age of the car just like California, California is just unique in that they mandate that you meet EPA new car emissions performance for the year of production regardless of the age of the car if it was made after 1974. The RB26 does not meet EPA standards for any car from 1989 to 2002. It lacks EGR, it lacks secondary air injection, it lacks VVT, the injectors are horrible for atomization. For 1996+ cars there is no OBD2 for the RB26 in any way, shape or form. Even if tomorrow Trump won his legal fight against CARB absolutely nothing would change on grey market imports for California.
> 
> I have spent a long time thinking about how to deal with these problems. Sean has given up on CA emissions compliance for the R34s and series 2/3 R33s to my knowledge. It is just too hard, too expensive to make OBD2 work and it is technically both a state and federal regulation to have OBD2 for 1996 or later year vehicles.


Oh okay, thank you for specifying it for me. You're right, I thought they planned on abolishing CARB all together from what other news media were pushing. Sean also told me how bad the OBD2s and he mentioned G&K auto conversions had them do the whole compliance modifications, but at $15,000 USD that is way too much and absurd. And they began to crack down on out of state cars. The state is just annihilated by the socialists it's absurd. 



joshuaho96 said:


> There's no difference in cost for people at a car show/meet to look at an R32 or R33 vs an R34. There is a pretty big difference between buying an R33 and R34 GT-R. I think many people will realize that the R33 and R34 are basically the same cars give or take some small refinements that can and have been added to the R33s, Aki's car is probably the best example of how the R34 parts can be retrofitted to the R33 to make the car just as capable as, if not more so than the R34. On top of that you get more room in an R33 and the longer wheelbase which makes it more stable on expressways/highways.


Maybe, we'll see. The R33 2.5 variant is selling for 24,000 USD there, so I wouldn't be surprised. After all, they throw there money at everything here like the $150,000 USD R34. I hope you will enjoy your R33, I bet it will be a joy to drive.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

G-Zilla said:


> Oh okay, thank you for specifying it for me. You're right, I thought they planned on abolishing CARB all together from what other news media were pushing. Sean also told me how bad the OBD2s and he mentioned G&K auto conversions had them do the whole compliance modifications, but at $15,000 USD that is way too much and absurd. And they began to crack down on out of state cars. The state is just annihilated by the socialists it's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, we'll see. The R33 2.5 variant is selling for 24,000 USD there, so I wouldn't be surprised. After all, they throw there money at everything here like the $150,000 USD R34. I hope you will enjoy your R33, I bet it will be a joy to drive.


OBD2 + emissions performance was ballparked at 50k per car due to the high cost of development. A lot of parts need to be retrofitted, developed, and validated. I don't know where you got the 15k figure from. 10k is the standard for G&K, they have a monopoly on grey market import for what is effectively welding some different catalytic converters poorly to the downpipe + main cat position and a restrictor on the fuel nozzle so you can't put leaded gas nozzles in there. This is the cost for all 1989 to 1995 RB26 GT-Rs assuming you bring them a stock car without a bunch of problems.

CARB is pretty open as to why they make this so difficult, it's because they want to discourage people from doing this. I personally think the FTP testing mandate is excessive but I don't really see an issue with the simple IM240 smog sniffer test, it's really not that hard if your car is even remotely well maintained and you haven't done something stupid like vent the PCV to atmosphere or decat your car.


----------



## G-Zilla (Jul 15, 2017)

joshuaho96 said:


> I don't know where you got the 15k figure from. 10k is the standard for G&K, they have a monopoly on grey market import for what is effectively welding some different catalytic converters poorly to the downpipe + main cat position and a restrictor on the fuel nozzle so you can't put leaded gas nozzles in there. This is the cost for all 1989 to 1995 RB26 GT-Rs assuming you bring them a stock car without a bunch of problems.


Well, aren't we nit picky today  I got that from Sean and an owner of a GTS-T from Big Bear. 10-15K is the range from what I've collected, a lot of folks have to pay 15K because the modifications done usually do not pass and a need to retest which they pay for themselves (It was $1500 before, I believe they raised the price up not too long ago to $2000?). If it were that easy like you state, the importers in California and out of state would have sold imported cars. California is by far the hardest place to legalize the imports, even parts of Europe aren't as bad as California's emission standards.

By the way, I decided to go and take a read of some articles about CARB against the white house since we talked about it and so it seems that indeed, President Trump wants to abolish California's emission laws all together which can benefit you. CARB's a nazi agency controlled by the left. I really hope they dismantle CARB so the left there will cry even more. And to think the state would do something good with the money they get from petrol tax and vehicle fees and fix up our destroyed roads. Just goes to welfare babies while we have to suffer financially.


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

G-Zilla said:


> Well, aren't we nit picky today  I got that from Sean and an owner of a GTS-T from Big Bear. 10-15K is the range from what I've collected, a lot of folks have to pay 15K because the modifications done usually do not pass and a need to retest which they pay for themselves (It was $1500 before, I believe they raised the price up not too long ago to $2000?). If it were that easy like you state, the importers in California and out of state would have sold imported cars. California is by far the hardest place to legalize the imports, even parts of Europe aren't as bad as California's emission standards.
> 
> By the way, I decided to go and take a read of some articles about CARB against the white house since we talked about it and so it seems that indeed, President Trump wants to abolish California's emission laws all together which can benefit you. CARB's a nazi agency controlled by the left. I really hope they dismantle CARB so the left there will cry even more. And to think the state would do something good with the money they get from petrol tax and vehicle fees and fix up our destroyed roads. Just goes to welfare babies while we have to suffer financially.


It's surprising that the margins are so slim then. I have discussed the possibility of retrofitting HKS VCAM to these cars to reduce emissions in the FTP testing cycle but the impression I got from Sean was that it would add cost. I think when it comes to CA emissions for these cars every detail is important. Something like a degree of base timing added can completely screw up the emissions of the car. 

Media coverage over the CARB/EPA regulatory fight is often uninformed and over the top. I don't like discussing politics but the GOP frankly does not care about people importing Skylines. If you look at the actual rules filed it is taking away CARB's waiver to set their own emissions standards that are more restrictive than federal law: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emi...one-national-program-federal-preemption-state

None of that discusses in any way, shape, or form that California is "breaking the law" by mandating direct import vehicles registered in California must have OBD2 if they are 1996 or newer which is a federal law, California actually mandated OBD2 even earlier, phasing in back in 1994. Nor does it mention anything about California's mandate that all vehicles post 1976 must pass smog every 2 years. While it's tempting to suggest that maybe eliminating the waiver will make it easier for the RB26 to pass the emissions test, federal emissions and CA emissions were harmonized at least for tier 1: https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t1.php and https://www.gtrusablog.com/2015/11/first-california-legal-nissan-skyline.html show that the emissions limits are quite permissive compared to what new car manufacturers are dealing with today. So there's no cause for action on the part of the federal government. Keep in mind that other states have similar laws as well, many places require smog every 2 years for a car made after 1968 regardless of age.

I have discussed this issue with multiple people. There is no reason at all to hope that the situation will change. At least with 2A cases there are a number of ways to push back against the legislature through the SCOTUS. Driving a Skyline on public roads (which is what dealing with all of this hoop jumping gets you) is not an enumerated right, nor is operating any motor vehicle on public roads.

California laws suck but there's no magic way around them. Hoping that Trump will somehow force CARB to stop mandating all of this crony capitalist nonsense for grey market import is wishful thinking. As you have already said, the only way out is to move.


----------



## K66 SKY (Jan 25, 2005)

Its all well and good copy and pasting links to all manner of Official Government Legislation joshuaho96 quoting Chapter and Verse from yadder, yadder, yadder too 

But....



joshuaho96 said:


> *Personally speaking I've already had my R33 waiting in storage for a year now, it's undergoing some maintenance and restoration before being shipped to the US for CA emissions compliance work.*


Until you've actually gone through all the processes Yourself and You are driving your Skyline GT-R legally on the road, You don't yet know all of the pitfalls, pros, cons and headaches which may lay in wait? Theory is great and all Kid, Life has its way of throwing spanners into the mix though.

JM2PW!


----------



## scoooby slayer (Jun 13, 2009)

I've got a bit of a real world comparison for ya, both my own cars driven by me
710 hp r33 gtr 30-130 mph 9.76 seconds, my r35 gtr at 840 hp did it in 6.8 seconds, they are both v power maps.
I love them all and am currently seriously contemplating buying an rb26 gtr, but I'm under no illusion that it will compete with my gtr because it won't


For reference with race fuel I have done 30-130 mph in 6.2 seconds with 962 hp, so I can roughly say that my gtr with 710 hp would be doing 30-130 in approx 7.4 seconds


----------



## joshuaho96 (Jul 14, 2016)

K66 SKY said:


> Its all well and good copy and pasting links to all manner of Official Government Legislation joshuaho96 quoting Chapter and Verse from yadder, yadder, yadder too
> 
> But....
> 
> ...


I’m not sure of the relevance here. I’m saying that there’s no real reason to hope that California emissions compliance gets easier/cheaper.


----------

