Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

After deciding to strip my car im basically left with shell, long motor, gearbox and running gear.

The car was never in an accident so shell is in top condition apart from some slight roof damage. Most of the interior is gone, all that remains is the main dash console. Suspension is out, still has brakes and discs all in tact, swaybars have been pulled out. On the exterior side of things the front guards are sold, headlights are removed to be sold separately the rest is in tact. Will add some pics tomorrow just want this out of the garage so i can make way for my work car.

asking $1500 negotiable.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262563-r33-gtst-rolling-shell/
Share on other sites

Hey sorry have been real busy so will add some pics tomorrow. Motor and gearbox not included but a price can be arranged for the lot.

Taso yes and no. It was a lot of work and pain in the ass, to tell you the truth i should have waited a little longer. I had the shits with idiots calling me on car sales but then again the number of time wasters that have sent me PM's on here is beyond a joke. If half of them came through i could have sold 10 cars like this..

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry had no camera, anyways here are some pics. I am asking $1500 for the shell which includes doors and rear panels etc.. If other parts are required a price can be negotiated. As far as i know there is no rust on the car, have owned it for the last 6 years and have never had a accident. Only minor damage to roof where bonnet has hit it but thats it, damage consists of ripples accross roof.

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...