Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

From 6 July 2009, drivers issued with a probationary licence on or after 1 July 2007 may drive some lower performance turbocharged or supercharged vehicles. The definition of a lower performance turbocharged or supercharged vehicle is a vehicle with 6 cylinders or less that is;

  • turbocharged or supercharged with a power to weight ratio of less than 100kW per tonne;
  • turbocharged or supercharged with a power to weight ratio between 100kW and 125kW per tonne and that is considered to be a family type vehicle (4 seats or more) rather than a sports type vehicle. A family type vehicle is a sedan, station wagon or hatch normally used to carry families/passengers with 4 or more seats and are equipped with child restraint anchorages. A family type vehicle does not include a sports car (two door coupe).

soo can anyone recommend something thats fun to drive that is within those rules?

soo can anyone recommend something thats fun to drive that is within those rules?

Does the law mean that under 100kw & turbo is fine but if its 100-125kw/tonne then you need to apply for an excemption?

If thats the case find a turbo car under 100kw/tonne will be easier I guess.

Starlet GT or supercharged aw11 mr2 are two fun cars. Im assuming they both fall under 100kw/tonne

why not get a vl turbo ? it would be under the kw rule, cheap, and you have zero chance of finding a stock one, so it should be "fun"

i mean 21psi is "low boost" on a vl turbo these days

id recommend some good tyres though

why not get a vl turbo ? it would be under the kw rule, cheap, and you have zero chance of finding a stock one, so it should be "fun"

i mean 21psi is "low boost" on a vl turbo these days

id recommend some good tyres though

hahahahahhaahahha realllllll funny

shan. i would hate to know what you were searching for when that came up

in that case, i would f**kin hate to know what that guy was up to..

on another note.

5 13 pages of VCD annotation, 30 generations to be drawn up, 10 developments with annotation and then i get to finally start the project. FML

hahahahahhaahahha realllllll funny

shan. i would hate to know what you were searching for when that came up

why hahahah ? it was a serious suggestion

there would be dozens for sale, they are cheap, last forever

the base power output vs weight would keep it under the rule

and almost all of them would have mods, so its still within the rule (based on factory specs)

why hahahah ? it was a serious suggestion

there would be dozens for sale, they are cheap, last forever

the base power output vs weight would keep it under the rule

and almost all of them would have mods, so its still within the rule (based on factory specs)

its a VL turbo man... i hate those things with a passion

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • Yuh, but that one is NLA. There might be an equivalent, but I haven't looked.
    • If you hadn't bought a stand alone one already, nismo make a bolt on adjustable FPR https://www.efisolutions.com.au/nismo-fuel-pressure-regulator-sr-rb-s13-180sx-r32
    • I know and understand they are principally the same. They both cause lock under decel, but the 1.5 nomenclature implies "half" or less locking force, or it allows for more slip or a speed differential between both wheels. Right now the driving manners with the 2 way is pretty rough on transient to full off throttle in the backroads. In other words letting off the throttle too rough is not forgiving, great for drifting, tougher for controlled grip driving.      Yeah, I have watched that video a couple times, I am more so just looking for the confirmation that both part numbers offer the same ramp architecture and are just different settings from the factory.     38420-RSS15-B5  38420-RSS20-B5
×
×
  • Create New...