Skyline Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi guys,

I am looking for information and advice on the R33 and R34 Skylines. I want something that is reasonable quick so looking at the RB25DE and RB25DE NEO engines. I have done a bit searching but cant find any information regarding 0-60 times, MPG, Powerbands.

Is their any pitfalls with either model and what to look out for?
What's the maintenance intervals and costs?
Differences between the 33 and 34?

Thanks in advance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I'm wanting to use the car as a daily driver. i love the looks of the R33 and R34 and don`t really fancy sub 18MPG on the turbos. Although saying that i cant find any MPG figures for the R34 GTT.
 

·
Regular DWYB'r
Joined
·
807 Posts
What's the maintenance intervals and costs?
Top tip, get a quote for an NA versus a turbo, R34 RB25DE versus RB25DET.

Insurance for a 39 year old with 6 years NCB, R34 GT RB20DE - £550. R34 GTT RB25DET - £600.

Get a turbo if you want performance, the insurance cost isn't that much more.

Ian. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Turbo would be best,

And "powerbands" lol, blast from the past. Who says that nowadays :rofl:
Hehe you know when i mean :D. In the Clio172 i used to have the power was instant. In the Celica it was after 4.5k. Just wondering when the power kicks in on these.

Thanks
 

·
No longer a rep :( but still here :)
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
Thats turbo power on these bad boys son. None of that N/A rubbish :D my turbo comes in about 5000rpm but it kicks like a donkey, but mines not standard :D
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,294 Posts
A non turbo won't work out particularly cheaper than a turbo when driving normally. You can drive it below 3k rpm at part throttle easily enough for normal use. Doing that means the turbo won't get chance to do anything. Yet it could still pull the skin off a rice pudding if the mood ever took you and you booted it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I was using my 33 gtst as a daily. 30 miles a day mainly twisty a roads and was getting average of 24 mpg. That was mainly just cruising but giving it some when i wasnt stuck behind a lorry, tractor, dorris in her micra or a chav in a saxo vts.
 

·
confused.com
Joined
·
6,592 Posts
A non turbo won't work out particularly cheaper than a turbo when driving normally. You can drive it below 3k rpm at part throttle easily enough for normal use. Doing that means the turbo won't get chance to do anything. Yet it could still pull the skin off a rice pudding if the mood ever took you and you booted it.

as would the rb25de, which is hardly and asmatic astra deisel now is it?


the NA route is IMO just more fun. linear power, all the way to the red line, and a noise that set the hair up on my neck. ...you cant get that straight 6 NA growl out of a turboed exhaust ...
 

·
Kyusha_Riot
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
i know this rb25de is not in a skyline but by any chance hesh do you mean this lovely sound ;) hehe itb's for the win! I much prefer n/a's and the tuning like hesh said its linear power all the way to redline, depends what you want out of it. turbo mods are much cheaper for bigger gain. n/a can get expensive but i think its worth it to have a fast n/a car :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X0OpBWCX70
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,294 Posts
as would the rb25de, which is hardly and asmatic astra deisel now is it?


the NA route is IMO just more fun. linear power, all the way to the red line, and a noise that set the hair up on my neck. ...you cant get that straight 6 NA growl out of a turboed exhaust ...
The OP was clearly concerned about fuel consumption as a daily driver, and I was simply stating that a turbo doesn't automatically mean it'll cost more to run. We weren't talking about whether he prefers to modify n/a or turbo. And personally I'd rather the car actually made decent progress when I put my foot down instead of just hearing a growl from the engine. And have you not heard a gtst at full throttle? It still growls! Don't forget these cars are about 1.4 tonnes, so they need the power to be quick cars. Even mine isn't what I'd call quick yet, and I've got over 300bhp. I spent just 400 quid in total getting it there, how much would it cost for you do the same?

Makes more sense to me to go turbo, but it depends if people are buying them just to get looked at or if they want it to perform too. I'm simply saying he shouldn't be put off by extra running costs, because if driven sensibly then it won't actually be worse on fuel. That's comparing 25de to 25det at least anyway, a 20de should be a little cheaper. But when it's pulling 1.4 tonnes I'm not sure an extra 2mpg or so would be worth it to me.
 

·
confused.com
Joined
·
6,592 Posts
The OP was clearly concerned about fuel consumption as a daily driver, and I was simply stating that a turbo doesn't automatically mean it'll cost more to run. We weren't talking about whether he prefers to modify n/a or turbo. And personally I'd rather the car actually made decent progress when I put my foot down instead of just hearing a growl from the engine. And have you not heard a gtst at full throttle? It still growls! Don't forget these cars are about 1.4 tonnes, so they need the power to be quick cars. Even mine isn't what I'd call quick yet, and I've got over 300bhp. I spent just 400 quid in total getting it there, how much would it cost for you do the same?

Makes more sense to me to go turbo, but it depends if people are buying them just to get looked at or if they want it to perform too. I'm simply saying he shouldn't be put off by extra running costs, because if driven sensibly then it won't actually be worse on fuel. That's comparing 25de to 25det at least anyway, a 20de should be a little cheaper. But when it's pulling 1.4 tonnes I'm not sure an extra 2mpg or so would be worth it to me.

mpg on my rb25de was around 30 when during 60 mile a day back and forth between catterick and middlesbro ..and that was doing any where between 2000 rpm and 6000, (well it were 6 in the morning)

i admit the turbo route ultimately is faster, but everyone dismisses the non turbo as slow, when it simply aint. The gearing onthe diff is different to take account of the relative lack of power, but it horses for course i guess.

my det stagea was a rocket, but for all i loved the car, the engine note and exhaust did nowt for me really ...and 18mpg didnt help! (though she was auto)
 

·
confused.com
Joined
·
6,592 Posts
i know this rb25de is not in a skyline but by any chance hesh do you mean this lovely sound ;) hehe itb's for the win! I much prefer n/a's and the tuning like hesh said its linear power all the way to redline, depends what you want out of it. turbo mods are much cheaper for bigger gain. n/a can get expensive but i think its worth it to have a fast n/a car :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X0OpBWCX70
well said that man .. turbos have always struck me ad the "brute force" answer to power, whereas NA is more finesse, and balance of components.
 

·
Kyusha_Riot
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
"i admit the turbo route ultimately is faster, but everyone dismisses the non turbo as slow, when it simply aint."

I agree on this, a well sorted N/A is not slow by any means put a sorted n/a car arround a track and it can flog a turbo!

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

Take this video for instance was the little mrs vs the silvias :) down the straight watch the turbos go but through corners the little mrs has the lot of them, i knwo this is down to power to weight which in thsi discussion proves pointlesss as both cars weigh the same pretty much but its worth taking into account :)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,294 Posts
Don't forget that the mk3 MR2 is a far more nimble car, and the 2zz-ge is a very quick 1.8 engine, it's no surprise that it does well in that video. What that video doesn't tell you however, is even when standard the 2zz-ge has terrible fuel consumption when on full throttle. My wife has the same engine in her corolla, and it actually costs more to run than my gtst. My gtst can average somewhere near 30mpg on a motorway run, or about 18mpg when I'm playing. Her corolla would be lucky to do about 30mpg on a run, but can do as badly as 7mpg when driving at full throttle everywhere. There's nothing wrong with it either, that's simply how they are. Having no turbo doesn't automatically mean it'll be cheaper to run. Also, consider that you'll have to work an n/a harder than a turbo'd engine to make the same progress, which can also impact on running costs. Just overtaking for example, you'd have to go full throttle to pass cars, whereas with a turbo you'd be able to do it at part throttle instead since you have more power in reserve. Turbo's can be driven economically. Don't see the point, but they can.

Besides, that video isn't really a fair comparison in this case, as we aren't talking about 2zz-ge engines in these cars are we. ;)
 

·
Kyusha_Riot
Joined
·
2,475 Posts
welll mpg wasnt my point there lol it was more proof of what an n/a car can do when well sorted against a turbo lol and icant beleive how bad the mr2's mpg is that is shocking you would of thought being so small and light that would alteast help lol
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,294 Posts
I know it wasn't, but like I say the OP clearly was concerned about mpg in his decision. I'm just saying not having a turbo doesn't automatically mean it'll be any cheaper, you can even drive a turbo sensibly if you choose.

But I know where you're coming from with your posts on the subject, different strokes for different folks. :)

Oh, and the mk3 MR2 isn't all that bad on fuel normally, but the one in that video didn't come with that engine from the factory. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top