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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...