Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hmm, N13 pulsar, I got it for free lol

I'd rate it 3/10, no ABS, no airbags, seatbelts were pretty bad.

I was lucky enough to not be involved in any accidents with it, But i've seen a few with my own eyes that got pretty messy.

One guy tryed to change lanes into a truck. He survived after being in hospital for a couple of weeks.

I saw another where someone crashed into one head on on the freeway cause he was drunk. The lady driving didn't survive.

Jeep Cherokee soft-top a mate used to own, 0/10. Complete and utter steaming pile of shit. No redeeming qualities at all.

Crap steering, crap gear-shift, crap brakes, rock hard suspension (odd for a fourby), bounced all over the place at pretty much any speed, and the finishing touch- the soft top would try to peel back on it's own at around 100 kays, and you had to hold the velco strap where it wraps around the frame to stop it from coming open.

Worst. Car. Ever.

Every Holden from the 50's - 60's atrocious on every level.

They'd be close to the worst cars built on the planet for their time.

But the king of the whole damn shitheap is the Fiat Niki aka Fiat 126...nothing comes close.

The fiat did have a slight go-cart quality about it..but other than that it's a shocker.

The early holdens, if any of you have driven them in stock standard form you'll understand.

0/0 and 0/0 for all

Edited by madbung

my old suzuki sierra, went over anything, but city driving, no sound deadening, no pwr ANYTHING, massive 4wd tread, low speed steering was unbelievable, 1.5L4cyl 42kw... was worth it though very fun car lol. 3/10

Edited by 2BNVS
my old suzuki sierra, went over anything, but city driving, no sound deadening, no pwr ANYTHING, massive 4wd tread, low speed steering was unbelievable, 1.5L4cyl 42kw... was worth it though very fun car lol. 3/10

You're Spot On!

Low Speed Steering and especially Low Speed Stability beggars belief!!

I'm waiting patiently on Silverwater Rd some years ago at the lights, ready to turn right onto Victoria Rd.

A Sierra driver turning left into Silverwater Rd doing about 50 I guess, tips the thing over; and then it slides over to our car and stops 2m away.

More unsafe than any Skyline with CF bonnet, no windscreen wipers on a rainy night being controlled by a driver in the passenger seat...

T

1979 Honda prelude

No ABS, no airbags, shitty seat belts, hand brake didn't work, brakes sometimes didn't work, rust all through the body (badly)

I would give it a 2... I am actually surprised the doors never literally fell off considering the amount of rust it had in there...

my cars id give:

3/10: 1986 4x4 toyota hilux

(shit suspension, under brakes rears lockup very easily due to alloy tray, no power steering with play in steering)

7/10: 1992 r32 gtst

(rough ride but suspension is good and awesome brakes, awesome steering, very safe car in comparison)

note: obviously things like airbags and side intrusion bars make a car safer in the case of an accident

but for me the way a car steers and handles makes me feel safe (or unsafe which ever the case might be!)

1985 toyota hilux, fell asleep one day on the way home from work, ploughed into a motorbike i was doing around 60, he was doing 50, all i got was a scratch on the number plate while his bike was parked under my front wheels, he landed in the well side, apart from a saw ass ,he was ok.

1985 toyota hilux, fell asleep one day on the way home from work, ploughed into a motorbike i was doing around 60, he was doing 50, all i got was a scratch on the number plate while his bike was parked under my front wheels, he landed in the well side, apart from a saw ass ,he was ok.

:) I dont get it... :thumbsup:

:P I dont get it... :)

...something to do with Post #15

When you have a bike under the front wheels, brakes lock up, there's no steering and suspension goes spongy.

Don't take my word for it though... :thumbsup:

wasn't there a car that would just explode if it was hit from behind with a bit of speed? i'd say that'd be the worst. Apart from that i once saw a corolla with about 2 feet of mattress foam on each panel so i guess that has to help . . . .

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...