Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

wow! clickety click

sorry if it's a re-post.. the firewall at work wont let me view the ceffy & other 4 doors area... so i had to go to one of my old posts in here and click new topic.

(good reason for a re-post don't you think lol!)

anyway... what's your opinions?.

I have mixed feelings, i like the idea, very unique and probably look great in the flesh but i don't know... the pictures kind of make it look weird.

Cheers,

Dave.

*edit, hope this link works better*

Edited by DJ984

Nah I am not a fan! I love the look of the cefiro front / lights....why make it look like another R34 Skyline???!!!!

The whole point of having a cefiro is to be different.....you rarely see another Cefiro on the road!! :D

Best bit everyone is like WTF when they mistake the Cefiro for a slow arse family car and then.....VVVRRRROOOOOMMMMM PPSSSHHHTTT :P BYE BYE

I tend to agree,

The front end it totaly out of proportion to the rest of the car. Nice idea but it does not do it for me. Why ruin a perfectly nice looking ceffy?

Dont Like it either, front end looks to big for the body, i have seen it in flesh it is diferent but im not a fan. As you say the whole family car sleeper style rocks my socks :D

FBI = Different. But mmmmmmmm not keen

Looks shit. No attempt made to blend the front bar in. 34 4 doors and Ceffys look awesome in their own respect.. This is just bad Joojoo

Go stick ur shitty r34 nose onto an s15 or something.. 17k LOL... Wonder what he payed for it. What a Jackass

ha ha! yeah, not many positive opinions coming out here eh... I actually thought the nose was a bit small not big though... seems to sit to low / sloped / off shape.

Ando : I'd love a ceffy man... put an rb25 / 26 / 30 det in there, a work shop x kit and some 33 gtr rims and she'd be tough as nails. But not really in a position for any of that at the moment lol!

Car is slow at the moment... playing the waiting game :D PM me and i can fill you in with more details

Cheers.

  • 4 weeks later...

lol you guys are way too harsh... not that I'm a fan of the mod or anything, and I think the blend job looks wierd the R34 front dosen't suit the shape of the cef back.

that said... we did this, so I can't criticise:

sky80.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...