Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys

Just needed some advice...

I want to rebuild my boot so that my sub (12") fits into the right hand side of the boot. I want it moulded in so that it can be as out of the way as possible so I can utilise the rest of my boot space. Atm my boot is half filled with a sub box.

What I was wondering is, if I do the moulding with fibre glass, what is the likelihood of it cracking. I want to build an MDF frame and make the fibre glass mouldings around it, but I'm worried about cracking the same way fibre glass bodly kits crack over time. Is there a better way of doing it or should I not worry about this. I figured that with the extra rigidity of a good frame, this may not even be a problem.

Any advice or previous experience would be greatly appreciated :stupid:

Edited by R33-GTS

Build it thick and it will be fine... Build it thin and it will crack and explode under presure...

You have little or nothing to worry about mate ... a fibreglass box will be fine! im making one for my tyre well now .. just for tips make sure you get all the air bubbles out first because they are a killer

For a single 12" subwoofer you'll want the wall thickness to be between 6mm and 12mm depending on how many bends, strengthening ridges etc are in it.

When constructing fibreglass enclosures here we utilise an extremely sophisticated testing procedure to see if the enclosure is strong enough. I put them on the ground and jump on them. If the wall flexes at all then it is not strong enough. :)

hey mate

here is a pic of my 10inch in the boot. to fit in a 12 is no probs just need to extend the front of the box forward another 3-4inches. (did that in a mates car) maes the edge of the box come in line with the boot itself.

might make you change your mind in fibreglassing a sub box.

post-31466-1176512808.jpg

post-31466-1176512827.jpg

hey mate

here is a pic of my 10inch in the boot. to fit in a 12 is no probs just need to extend the front of the box forward another 3-4inches. (did that in a mates car) maes the edge of the box come in line with the boot itself.

might make you change your mind in fibreglassing a sub box.

That's an awesome job!

Now you've got me rethinking my design :)

Might take me a couple of weekends to put it all together. I'll post up some pics when I'm done :)

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...