r32 vs r34 or r35

[M13]

Why would they even compare a 400hp R32 to a 600hp R33/R34?...there's just no point. The R32 isn't even close to being up to par with the other.

That's like trying to compare a stock GTS-T to a stock GTR...lol

Yeah all these "comparisons" are fail IMO, just cool to watch but actually not a good comparison at all.

[albertm7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27NkTY8k5Co

[GodziRRa]

^ Like it was said, the BNR32 there only has 400hp vs. BCNR33 and BNR34 having 600s.

And I think you guys already knew that the fastest AWD record holder is a GT-R BNR32, set by New Zealand's Reese Mcgregor and his single turbo Godzilla at 7.57 at 190.13 mph. The BCNR33 on the other hand was considered by critics to be the "bastard" among the GT-R brothers for it isn't as successful in motorsports as its other siblings. Especially its predecessor the BNR32 w/c set rampage on motorsports history like 29 official race wins, dominated Bathurst (resulting it to be called Godzilla by foreigners), banned to compete for being too dominating (changed Group A rule book in effect), winning N1 Taikyu from 91 to 95, etc. etc...

As for the topic if the BNR32 can be as fast or faster than the CBAR35, answer is... YES w/o a doubt!

[cooke24]

I prefer r33 now over r32. R32 interiors just are complete junk. Where as r33 nothing is falling apart. IMO

[NismoS-tune]

I prefer r33 now over r32. R32 interiors just are complete junk. Where as r33 nothing is falling apart. IMO

You must of had a bad interior... both mine were really good. Anyway, the R33 interior is better and sturdier. Why else would it weight so much more? haha

If all 3 had the same power, I'm confident the R35 would be quickest, even with it's heavy weight (since it would have less lag, wider power band, more torque, way faster shifting, better handling and awd). the R34 should also be quicker with it's slight advantage of better technology (AWD per say). As much as we love our old cars, let's be serious, even a new ford taurus SHO has better technology and is quicker. Things get old...

[jonathan2340]

This is really a wonderful post that you have posted here. Keep it up.

[Skym]

HKS ran a 7.67 1/4 with R33 chassis. 0.10 difference. Not much.

The R32GTR was quicker than the Cossie's, but had more hp in Japan -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZKdMJduWdw

Same result downunder in Australia (Gibson R32GTR) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLQpix9ub00

Wasn't reliable on it's debut, reliable GTS-R with RB20DET finished 3rd and helped Nissan win the 1990 ATCC.

GTS-R with RB20DET won the first round at Amaroo in 1990 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zeHC1_Tfjo

The RB20DET type of engine (2 litre 6 cylinder) goes back to the Hakosuka GTR that won the most races for a GTR (won 58 races) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAXGuD_f3Kw

The 58 race wins is one of the reasons why the Hakosuka is the most sort after GTR over R32GTR, etc. Sound is the other.

The GTS-R with RB20DET is still winning races, 2 out of 3 race wins -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIasNcIrZcM

The 1500hp, 8.9sec AMS built R35GTR is the best street GTR (full interior, etc) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgbnfdnuSKE

[cory]

I'm pretty sure the r33 has faster times on the nurburgring track compared to the r32 And r34

[collector240sx]

HKS ran a 7.67 1/4 with R33 chassis. 0.10 difference. Not much.

Don't quote me on this but I remember reading somewhere that the HKS R33 was retired a while back and never brought out because it had barely any protection, and wouldn't be fit to race anywhere. And that is one thing that a lot of people don't take into consideration, there is a lot of variable when comparing a race car from the early '90 to today's race car. You have some regulation that have changed, but also difference in fuel, tuning capability, availability of materiel (parts), quality of material (parts), and affordability of materiel (parts). I say this because a lot of people seam to consider a tube frame chassis with a fiber glass shell and a souped up version of it's engine a good example of the performance of said car, when obviously it isn't anymore. But that brings up an other point, exactly when does modification (alteration) to a car, tip the scale and it shouldn't be called by it's former name anymore.

And newer version of a cars should always be better, but you have to be careful in this interpretation. It could mean the car is safer, more environmentally friendly, more comfortable. Some of these elements also mean heavier cars, just look at what happen to the civic. And the GTR might of been design for race but the car was sold under almost every category imaginable short of doing a el camino out of it. The R33 actually reflect their desire to build a more comfortable car, which sold pretty well. It's just to bad that the R34 didn't sell has well.

Lucky for us, a lot of the parts are the same for the R32, R33, and R34. If you got the time and money you can even transplant the whole R34 drivetrain in your R32. But always remember build your cars for YOUR need not for what the other want your car to be. If you want a race track or autocross car don't build a drag car just for a nice dyno number. There is a lot more to a car then simply an engine.

[Skym]

I heard the HKS R33GTR drag chassis was getting tired (too many runs) hence they retired it.

Some say the R33 was a step step sideways (softer luxury type design), not a step forward. I think R34 chassis is a R33 chassis (front towers, etc look the same) with shorter wheel base, different shaped panels, etc. They tried to recreate the R32 with R34. Only problem was the weight with R34GTR (heavy like the R33GTR, hence why I think it's the same chassis but modified).

I noticed on most new cars they run dual panel floorpans instead of one panel floorpan like used on R32 and additional panels to increase rigidity, safety around cabin area, extra side intrusion beams in doors for safety, etc. All that adds extra weight to car.