Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

and I agree with discussion. that said there are things best left unposted. I get enough questions on these cars as it is and 90% of them are not on this forum.

in regard to your original problem if you have a autowatch 573 tag on your key then the antenna for it is in the wrong spot causing your car to see TWO keys and then the NATS 5 system tossing the main key out for that round.. that is the reason I wanted to see the car. out of curiosity what do you do for a living?

Edited by Chris Rogers

(soapbox)

good stick to doing that :) you can see what I do for a living and I'm fairly sure you do not tell all your tricks to everyone - nor do I.

when you open a post with a name calling( which an apology was issued on ) it doesn't sit well with others. if you had been nice about things in the beginning I probably would have helped you straight away.

(/soapbox)

now that this has been said - back to what we are talking about.

Sounds like I really got to you Chris, you need to loosen up. And you are totally wrong about me not giving my 'trade secrets' away. If I can help someone with an IT problem, as long as its a fairly quick solution like my NATS problem, then I'll tell them. Lets face it, you aren't going to get rich from helping people reposition an antenna, but you're trying thats for sure, especially with the prices you charge just to hook up a gps to the aux input.

Have a look at one of my other posts, I have found a way to get the CVT oil into Australia at a vastly cheaper way than anyone else and I'm offering to help others that want it, not keeping that little 'trade secret' to myself.

And since when did we start wrapping people up in cotton wool? I've heard 5yr olds call someone a name that was far worse than 'Captain Obvious', don't tell me I've scarred Stephen for life after that, haha

Last time I checked, this is a forum and its open for people to give opinions, and thats what I gave Stephen, what you gave me, and this is my final opinion on this subject.

we'll agree to disagree then. I'll leave it at that.

there are people here that have a lot more knowledge than you or I combined on these - they don't post it here.

I run a business as you know and I do not use a aux in for navi other things - yes.

So is this issue now fixed?

Did you get the right answer?

and no, comments or name calling does not scar me...

Yeah Chris decided to front up with the info so all good.

Anyway, I've moved on from you, don't you know humour when you read it? This relationship we had is over, you can stop posting in my topic now :thumbsup:

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...