Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I saw a 4 door R33 Skyline yesterday in Brisbane that had a lining of the inside of the bootlid itself. It covered the boot and entended over the lock as well. It looked like there were 20-30 plastic clips holding it in place. The fabric was the same felt/plastic stuff or whatever it is, that the rest of the boot lining parts have on it. Searching around I found some reference to someone in the UK stating they are rare. My car never had one, and I'd not seen it in anyones pictures.

Does anyone here have it? If so, can you post a picture of it. I'm going to try and find one for my car. Hoping it will dampen down the road and rattles noises that come from the boot.

A mate who has it in his car mentioned it actually made a different noise wise in his. Horses for courses I guess.

I'm missing one, and want to locate one. If it does nothing for the noise and rattle, then that's ok. It will still look better, and I'll be happy all the same.

The noises I'm hearing are buzzes, hollow sounds from the road etc. I don't have a sub yet, just 2x back speakers in that area. Also since putting in my new fuel pump I'm more concious of noises and sounds now from the back end.

As I mentioned, if it does nothing for the noises, that's ok. I can still be happy for the looks department and knowing my car is missing one less item than when I bought it.

Fair enough. I'm guessing you have a quite exhaust therefore can hear so many sounds because above the exhaust the only time I hear road noise is with the back seats removed.

there are 2 rubber stoppers attached too the boot lid (just like on the radiator support for a bonnet) these rubber stoppers are adjustable like the bonnet ones by just spinning them with your fingers. They are for adjusting your boot up and down from the rear and my guess is your boot is too low and getting some viabration. Try losening them to get some more pressure

Give Erwin at Skyline spares in Sydney a call, he would seperate one from a boot fr you because hes kind enought to seperate top tanks from radiators on request

Edited by central coast person
  • 3 weeks later...

Decided to do a little work on the boot lid today. First off was to duct tape some cut up utility blanket stuff to the boot lid. I figured why not increase the sound proofing before putting the lining on.

post-63769-1274067821_thumb.jpg post-63769-1274067890_thumb.jpg

Once I was happy with this, it was time to mount the boot lid lining.

post-63769-1274067970_thumb.jpg post-63769-1274068020_thumb.jpg

And now all done with the clips in.

post-63769-1274068081_thumb.jpg post-63769-1274068111_thumb.jpg post-63769-1274068330_thumb.jpg

I only used one layer of the utility blanket material and could have gone with two. Obviously it's not going to work as well as say Dynamat would, but I have a few rolls of this stuff and am confident it will help things nicely. It can't hurt to try right.

The lining looks nice once mounted and am happy I persevered in locating one :)

Edited by KrazyKong

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...