Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i had a 605awhp stagea rs4 with shit rims and stock external bodywork, black intercooler, nothing to give it away, lets say i had a few laughs in the time it was driving on the street, bunch of young guys in a vx clubsport r8 pulled up at the lights and commented on the sound of the exhust "sounds fast" he said in a sarcastic way. Lets just say once i hit 2nd gear it was all over and he did the fly by when i slowed down and next lights i pulled up again next to him and his passenger said 'f**k mate you need a parachute".

Also had a good run with a motorbike from the lights and he didnt expect it thats for sure, he pulled up after the run and said what the hell is in that thing haha.

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i had a 605awhp stagea rs4 with shit rims and stock external bodywork, black intercooler, nothing to give it away, lets say i had a few laughs in the time it was driving on the street, bunch of young guys in a vx clubsport r8 pulled up at the lights and commented on the sound of the exhust "sounds fast" he said in a sarcastic way. Lets just say once i hit 2nd gear it was all over and he did the fly by when i slowed down and next lights i pulled up again next to him and his passenger said 'f**k mate you need a parachute".

hahahaha thats gold!

i had some fun in my ford laser tx3 4wd turbo back in the day... was dead stock, mint as, full history and kept up with most stock/mildly done up imports.

gave a few people a surprise... i remember an s14 gunning it off the lights up to 4th, looked over and i was just up to his door, he was fairly shocked hahaha... didnt win anything but was good enough for the wtf look :rofl:

mate of mine had a 1982 sigma with a sr20 in it. cooler was relatively well hidden. stock 15" mags, stock tint (which was that old bluey colour and was peeling a little bit). pretty much just looked like a clean stock sigma, apart from the exhaust note and the fact it ran mid 12's. he was going to put the motor into an old late 70's chrysler galant wagon (brown, roof racks, stock 13" wheels, blanket over the rear seat, etc) but he put the 15" wheels on it at work, drove it about 3km home and took them straight off because it was horrible to drive (still had the stock motor in it) because it was all over the place. the tyres just followed the road, and he just thought it was going to be too much work getting all the suspension sorted/replaced to get it to be driveable on the road with any power.

Old school Audi gets my seal of win.. Audi 80 or S2

General lee audi for example..

Simple rule with a good sleeper though.. probably doesn't matter how they look because people won't be able to get a good enough look in time any way.

Edited by bryno

The Jap spec SSS bluebird is a nice sleeper

Nissan_U13_Bluebird_SSS_ATTESA.jpg

They're already 4wd and have the sr20 in them, cheap as and chances are now the paint is peeling too.

Edited by 240k convertible

My daily driver is a 1989 Mazda 323 Shades. 1.6L Carby, 3 speed auto. Slowest car I have ever been in lol. However, it is comfy and light. I see it as a perfect candidate for an SR20. Its brown with brown interior. It looks slow because it is slow. But with an SR20, some decent tyres and somehow make it not FWD it would be awesome. Its like 900kg or something.

  • 11 months later...

for me it would be a toyota crown station wagon, BA XRT engine and gear box, black inter cooler, venetian blinds in the back window etc etc.

For me a sleeper has to be reasonably quiet, which a non forced induction motor couldnt do. XR motor is big enough to push the car along with minimal mods fairly rapidly plus the car is big enough to hide some decent suspension under it with out much hassle

post-53947-1278319787_thumb.jpg

  • 2 weeks later...

Ford BA series or later ex-taxi pick up for nix - put in XR6 turbo engine, trans and suspension - work the mutha f*cker. Put in all the curry decorations too :blink:

Datsun 910 bluebird - sr20det and all mods - keep it looking stock with the louver and granny/grandpa hat on the back seat.

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...