Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

OH! makes me think i should have taken pictures from when i moved house today! stag was CHOKERS!!!

Same, when i moved, managed a fridge(in box). also managed a 46" TV(in box) plus all the other crap.

THis is nice(not mine) gallery_63525_3330_1074722.jpg

Very Nice!! They look so nice in black.

Flip the little cover over the positive terminal or it wears thru the underbonnet heat padding stuff :)

Yeah I was charging up the battery and forgot to flip it back ....do you guy's know the color code of the dark blue for the 1998 stagea 260rs?
Yeah I was charging up the battery and forgot to flip it back ....do you guy's know the color code of the dark blue for the 1998 stagea 260rs?

If you put the vin # into FAST it will give you the paint code.

If you dont have FAST PM me ya vin and i can do it for ya.

Yeah I was charging up the battery and forgot to flip it back ....do you guy's know the color code of the dark blue for the 1998 stagea 260rs?
It should be on the factory ID plate below the model number(my guess is BT8) but put up your vin number otherwise for the definitive answer.
I sold my RS4 S on Friday, took one last pic before she got picked up. :D

post-47733-1263198049_thumb.jpg

what offsets are those? thats exactly how i want the wheels on my rs4s to sit, what did u use?

9.5 +15 all round with 235/40's

I have the wheels for sale, PM me if your keen.

i'm so poor its not funny, did u have any issues with clearance? did u have the guards rolled or anything?

Looks awesome. Pity the RS4V's don't have the same rear cradles to run rims with that sort of offset. I'm trying to squeeze 9.5 +25's under mine....

i'm running 9.5+15 on the rear of mine no problems at all.

on another note, just ordered my new wheels, so 4 months-ish (such a long wait :banana: ) and you'll see some more crazy wheel fitment :banana:

i'm running 9.5+15 on the rear of mine no problems at all.

on another note, just ordered my new wheels, so 4 months-ish (such a long wait :banana: ) and you'll see some more crazy wheel fitment :banana:

do tell mike...pm me if its a secret

i'm so poor its not funny, did u have any issues with clearance? did u have the guards rolled or anything?

Its all good! Only issue I had was the wheels would sometimes hit the coilovers but that was because I ran the car so low.

I would have prefered if the wheels had a +5 or even a 0 offset and ran the same camber all round (around 3 degrees)

i'm running 9.5+15 on the rear of mine no problems at all.

on another note, just ordered my new wheels, so 4 months-ish (such a long wait :( ) and you'll see some more crazy wheel fitment :laugh:

What suspension are you running? I've got a set of Tein Style Master Super Low down Wagon Spec.... stupid funny names! My biggest issue is that I can't get the front end any lower. The rear I can drop another 2". Did you roll/pull/pump your guards to fit the +15's? Do you run camber arms?

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...