Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Audi Quattro

Trans am

Buick Grand National

AC Cobra 427

Honda Integra Type R DC2

Mazda MX5

AE86 Sprinter

Alfa Romeo GTV V6

Mazda RX7 series 1

Corolla SX

tubo regals were around for some time. they started doing them in the late 70's the last of them were the best (86/87) and the quickest.

one that I think may have been missed its the subaru XT (or alcynone VX) styling on that one was ahead of its time

Toyota Soarer - Both aesthetically and functionally, in 1991 was ahead of everything but the most expensive European vehicles. The ergonomics of this thing were adopted well into the late 90's until Toyota started making fridges.

Opel Calibra - Wrong place at the wrong time, particularly in Australia where we weren't ready for expensive European coupes just yet. Not to mention the lacklustre marketing behind it. Some models as early as 1989/1990 (in Europe) yet portrayed design cues and functionality inherited by mid to late 90's vehicles.

I think there's a fine line between vehicles with styling that was later copied by many manufacturers and therefore ahead of its time, and vehicles that simply did not catch on in terms of looks - e.g. Subaru SVX.

this thread is useless, how on earth did the diablos and older get on here? they are the ugliest cars ever made, not to mentuion that they never work, and people are saying R34's and Supras. Why? there is nothing special about them? They are jap cars that may look nice, but technology wise and styling wise they are not special at all

this thread is useless, how on earth did the diablos and older get on here? they are the ugliest cars ever made, not to mentuion that they never work, and people are saying R34's and Supras. Why? there is nothing special about them? They are jap cars that may look nice, but technology wise and styling wise they are not special at all

I disagree with the Supra comment. For a car released in '93 they're bloody good looking, even compared to modern day standards. Hell, even some new cars have the same shape and styling.

Tell me this doesn't look similar to a Supra, which was made 17 years ago.

Ford GT40

Nissan R32 (I mean come on look at what all the other major manufacturers were offering at the time, IE VL, XF, VW style porsches, angular Ferrarris and Lambos etc, and also a huge improvement over the HR31 and DR30 styling)

i agree somewhat, but that ferrari does look amazing

I disagree with the Supra comment. For a car released in '93 they're bloody good looking, even compared to modern day standards. Hell, even some new cars have the same shape and styling.

Tell me this doesn't look similar to a Supra, which was made 17 years ago.

I'm counting exterior only, as interiors seem to date a lot quicker.

Mazda FD RX-7

Toyota SW20 MR2

McLaren F1

Ferrari 360 Spyder

Mercedes Benz R230 SL series

Mercedes W203 C-Class

BMW E85 Z4 (roadster)

Datsun S30 240Z

Ford Mustang (first gen)

Lotus Elise

Volvo P1800

AC Cobra

Peugeot 406

Mercedes 300SL Gullwing

Karman Ghia

I'm counting exterior only, as interiors seem to date a lot quicker.

Mazda FD RX-7

Toyota SW20 MR2

McLaren F1

Ferrari 360 Spyder

Mercedes Benz R230 SL series

Mercedes W203 C-Class

BMW E85 Z4 (roadster)

Datsun S30 240Z

Ford Mustang (first gen)

Lotus Elise

Volvo P1800

AC Cobra

Peugeot 406 coupe

Mercedes 300SL Gullwing

Lancia Stratos

Austin Mini

^^ Incredible looking car...

1750gtv.jpg

have always been a fan of these little alfas. There's one that belongs to this guy Nick Rahimtulla. It goes off on the VSCC race days held annually in my town. Incredible to look at, every time.

this thread is useless, how on earth did the diablos and older get on here? they are the ugliest cars ever made, not to mentuion that they never work, and people are saying R34's and Supras. Why? there is nothing special about them? They are jap cars that may look nice, but technology wise and styling wise they are not special at all

The thread is based on aesthetics only, not technology. It has sort of turned into a "my favourite car is..." thread though. I think some shockers have been posted but it is all subjective & each to their own.

The Countach was way way ahead of its time & imo is still one of the sexiest looking cars today.

The Mark IV Supra's styling was also ahead of its time, and like others have said still looks good today for a car that came out 17 years ago which is hard to believe. Just as the Z32 300ZX came out in 1989, hardly anything on the road at the time could touch its sharp ultra modern looks and a nicely kept one still manages to turn heads today.

The R34 GTR imo is the modern day evolution of muscle car looks. An fine amalgamation of boxy retro muscle with modern flair - it has an unmistakeable presence on the road. Similarly the R32 GTR was also cutting edge with its looks for the time.

The Audi R8 is yet another example of a car that is miles ahead of its time. And the list goes on...

lol there was a Pantera at the summernats and I had to tell a bunch of bogans what it was :blink: They were like "ohh never heard of it" :down:

I think Escort RS Cossies still look shit hot, for an early 90's car

escortcosworth-ouverture.jpg

escort-cosworth-imp-2_jpg.jpg

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...