Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

here's my ceff, Uras NS-01

17 x 9.5 +15 front, s14 LCA's, 20mm flared front

17 x 9.5 +15 rear with 25mm spacer= -10, custom flared metal guards

needs more low tho :)

post-53947-1238666699_thumb.jpg

post-53947-1238666829_thumb.jpg

technically yes, but if you imagined the spacer was apart of the wheel, the wheel would be neg 10.

Rear gaurds are pimp NICKCEFFY, haha you can see half the rear tyre pretty much.

demsA31 also looks the goods, makes me want a kit..

Cheers mate,

yeh love the big proper formed guards!!

makes me wanna do the laurel now as well, but then i've gotta get new rims for that as well!!! :cheers:

Edited by NICKCEFFY

3411412010_45fbdd1f01_b.jpg

Flushhhhhhhhh

3410600977_f8c896383d_b.jpg

Pants tighten everytime you look in the side mirror and just see the edge of the wheel chillin outside the guard.

3411414688_efc6a4ab30_b.jpg

Flushhh FAIL in the front by about 1.5cm. Didn't realise that the guard would flex so much when rolled. will need to get longer bolts and space it out or buy more Godfathers... MOAR GODFATHERS!!!1!

3410601569_01b8fdb4fb_b.jpg

3411414030_fefd61cd32_b.jpg

Fronts are 18x8.5 +35 (with a 3mm spacer to clear the strut) and rears are 18x9.5 +35 (perfect IMHO for cef)

Tyres are 215/40/18 in front and 225/40/18 in the rear, which tucks in under the rolled guard nicely, and still retains the crease line on the guard.

If I was to get another paid for the front I'd go 18x9" with a +25 or +26 offset. That would clear the strut AND space the outside of the wheel to be FLUSHHHHH with guard.

I might try R33 LCA's to try and push the track out a lil, but with the car running shocks and springs instead of coilovers, I can't have camber tops to cancel out the negative camber longer LCA's will give me :cool: Or is my theory flawed?

Hey man, wheels look good..could have gone a few mm lower, but Im a fan of low offset :devil:

Funky, yours look good too. Maybe a slightly skinnier rims with lower offset would be good, avoid having to use spacers?

Hey man, wheels look good..could have gone a few mm lower, but Im a fan of low offset :devil:

Funky, yours look good too. Maybe a slightly skinnier rims with lower offset would be good, avoid having to use spacers?

I wanted to go +25, But I couldn't find any that I liked.

(You were responding to me, right?)

Edited by DanShirts

yeah I'm gonna keep looking out for anothe rpair of godfathers in 9" with a +25 offset for the front, till i find them I'm just gonna lengthen the hub bolts and run 20mm spacers on the ones I have now to bring em out.

Cant really tell you about these rims.. Off a mates HR31, 16" 225/40 I think.. Knew the offset would be horrible, but we did it anyway! :banana:

3036_66916592850_717762850_1614745_6932323_n.jpg

Never bothered to put the suspension back in the front after Regency, as I drive it everyday. Not worth the hassle..So sit on the bonnet it was!

3036_66916597850_717762850_1614746_603535_n.jpg

3036_66916617850_717762850_1614749_557160_n.jpg

3036_66916632850_717762850_1614752_7913788_n.jpg

3036_66916602850_717762850_1614747_6739317_n.jpg

Was all for shits and giggles. :banana:

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 months 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

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...