Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 508
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i dont think it ever will be. it wont meet any sevs criteria. unless you could argue it's shape as a unique design feature, and then get HPI to run a feature article on it. then it would satisfy sevs to get put on the list. BUT then you still need a RAW to apply for compliance for it. atm your only hope is move to japan for a year. buy one. then bring it back. or just go for a holiday in japan and rent one.

edit: I've been in one a couple of times now. :happy:

I agree that the Cube will almost certainly never be allowed because it fails to meet the minimum power to weight ratio required for the SEVS scheme, that means it would have to have some sort of outstanding design features which is doesn't appear to have, so it would almost certainly be rejected if an application was to be submitted.

minimum power to weight ratio?

lol I think he wanted to know why that was a restriction Baron.

For a vehicle like the Cube to be considered for addition to the SEVS register (the list of the cars that could possibly be imported under SEVS), it must satisfy at least two of the following criteria: Appearance, Unusual Design Features, Performance, and Featured in specialist motoring magazines in factory condition..

Under the performance category, one of the requirements is a power to weight ratio greater 105 kw/tonne.

What J-Spec and Baron are trying to get at is that it could be featured in a magazine, but it would most likely not meet the appearance or unusual design features tests and hence be ineligible.

I'm working on the Toyota bB at the moment, using the appearance criteria. One aspect of it is silhouette, and I think it should qualify fairly well, as would the Cube.

Will see how we go with the bB first.

i like the green ones with an army type look. wink if you want one bad enough send me some cash and ill look after it for you for a year :D

Haha. Let me look at some prices on the auctions. :)

You need one of these. Daihatsu Naked. They look worse in the flesh, and they are K.

I have to say they don't even look half as good as the Cube.

I'm working on the Toyota bB at the moment, using the appearance criteria. One aspect of it is silhouette, and I think it should qualify fairly well, as would the Cube.

Will see how we go with the bB first.

saw a dark blue in Adelaide. Would love to buy a Bb open deck if they are available

  • 1 year later...

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...