Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
you CAN fit te37's with good offset on a gtst, you just have to work the guards a bit.... not a widebody kit, just a roll/flare and its done

easy 18x10 +12 fit... and with te's you really dont need any more dish than that

Any photos of this??? would be interesting to see :) ... also does anyone have some photos of big wheels with flared guards (standard guards)

Since the R33 has a curvy character and i think (purely subjective) that the more squarey shaped wheels e.g. TE37's, LMGT4's, even XD9's don't bring out the best in the car, they suit boxier shapes like R32s and R34s. Rims with sharp ends like Buddy Club P1's, Work Emotion KR Cai's, even BBS styles would better suit the curvy nature of R33s

Hope you don't mind Vu, but i think your R33 converts non-believers haha

post-55803-1251177812_thumb.jpg

Same goes with Silvia S15's

post-55803-1251176638_thumb.jpg

Danny

Edited by squareznboxez
  • 2 weeks later...
+ another one for P1s....

They rock. Simple and clean shape. They suit the R33 as a 90's era car by respecting it. Too be honest I'm kind of opposed to the whole 'mod movement where guards are rolled/flared etc.....it's brutalising the intended design of the car. In 20 years time the original car as an 'era design' will look x10 better than the highly cosmetically modded stuff of today. They will be like faded tatts or the embarresing haircuts you had years ago.

What size are those P1's BTW? 17"

Edited by Battery_backup
They rock. Simple and clean shape. They suit the R33 as a 90's era car by respecting it. Too be honest I'm kind of opposed to the whole 'mod movement where guards are rolled/flared etc.....it's brutalising the intended design of the car. In 20 years time the original car as an 'era design' will look x10 better than the highly cosmetically modded stuff of today. They will be like faded tatts or the embarresing haircuts you had years ago.

What size are those P1's BTW? 17"

Yeah... the best performance size good old 17 inch =D

Width and offset?

forgot... ill check tomrorw since im taking off my rims to do my rotors and brake pads...

how about advans on a r33? look good dont you think?

IMG_90361.jpg

P1's do look great on 33's.

Not a huge fan of any 3 spoke wheel, but those look alright I'm guessing because they're black.

I'm not either. They look a bit weak and insubstantial. I wonder if they are more prone to buckling etc?

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, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...