Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a rotary would be even harder for the die-hard Nissan enthusiasts to stomach than the Chev.

Chev is easier to fit too... but the 20B would be awesome. I contemplated this too, but in my 180 :P
Both are pretty much hated :D

I used to own a few rotaries, and now have a nissan and an LS1. I just can't make up my mind! ;)

I would love to have a rotary for a race car!! It's on the list to own one day :) or is that a bucket list :P

:blink:

i thought you would like it john ! they are fantastic

please dont tell your time .... you probably went faster in the wet than me in the dry!! lol

actually would be really cool to see how fast you could punt one around oran !! i reckon high 1.15 with no mercy! which would be awsome !

Hehe we are going to organise for another time to have a drive in the dry. I will keep you posted. There computer upgrade gives it another 70kwatw :huh: 290+ standard and 360+ with the Haltech :blink:

see video of R33 GTSt with a 20B in it...

Also 350Z with 20B...

I would go V8 rather than rotary... swore to myself that if I destroyed the RB again it would be Nissan V8 time... with a big SC:)

I don't even need to click the first link to know that it's Pete's burgundy R33. It's a cammy RB and not a rotary - although it fooled a heap of people who watched the video.

***EDIT***

Farkin' LOL at the Youtube comments! Holy crap!

Haha speaking of engine conversions I was really considering at one stage to put an rb25 in the rx :thumbsup:

LOL...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If that is your car in your post then keep the rotor in it. (oh and looks like a great FC by the way :thumbsup: )

RBs are big , heavy and lazy things, which work well in a Skyline...but. Hell i would say throw a V8 in the FC before an RB :)

I am holding out for R35 GTR V spec, just need sponsor or something or another minor miracle.

What about this car for track weapon? How about a 4wd carbon body, custom V8 with 2 x Hayabusa heads, dry sump, 420hp and only 500kg, awesome aero and very low height and centre fo gravity. Illegal for Superlap though.

Track Beast

they use chain drive from memory. :thumbsup: and it's a fairly light spaceframe, with super light body. and they use tiny very light diffs and I think inboard brakes too from memory.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Latest Posts

    • 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...