Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The answer is, yes AND no.

I saw a genuine disintegrated rear CF diffuser off a 2002 V Spec II N1 (yes that's right, a real N1) and guess what, it's made out of a thick layer of dry carbon fibre on the outside, and some tye of alloy in the centre. Im guessing it's probably aluminium anyway as the diffuser is quite light.

So there you go. I thought they were supposed to be 100% dry carbon fibre but the fact is, they're not.

I will take a pic next time i see that car.

I have mine off my car and it looks like dry carbon all the way through, nothing shiny or looks like metal.

are the n1's different maybe? it weighs about 4-5kg, what bout the n1

I honestly doubt they would make 2 differnt types of diffusers for our cars, Especially the fact this was an N1 car. If they did make 2 types, I would have thought they would put a 100% cf one on an N1.

And also, how would you know yours is 100% cf when you cant see right through it?

I honestly doubt they would make 2 differnt types of diffusers for our cars, Especially the fact this was an N1 car. If they did make 2 types, I would have thought they would put a 100% cf one on an N1.

And also, how would you know yours is 100% cf when you cant see right through it?

umm there are some holes drilled in the diffuser, ill get some pics asap.

looked inside and it looks uniform in structure all the way through

I thought I told you to stay out of my garage, Eugene!!

It sounds fairly unusual to have a layer of metal in-between, mainly because it would be so hard to bond it. Maybe it's some kind of bonding agent that's a similar colour??

I went and checked mine and it's definitely all CF, but I'm pretty sure mine's a Nismo one.

Edited by Iron Chef
You may want to avoid showing the rest of the car, though :P If it's the one I'm thinking of...

I cant show the car as it's not for me to display, so I will respect the owner for it. Car is for sale though but it's most likely that it's sold already.

  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...