Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yo your inbox is full,......

anyway...

what do u guyz think of this I'm getting a boomerang installed this Saturday for $1150 @ Jetspeed Melbourne and includez windowz auto up and auto start....

Then I found this

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi...&item=956222415

PLZ NOONE BID THIS.....rekon it'z better to get this then get Jetspeedz one?

then this came up

http://www.asiapacific.com.my/xinhai/product07.html

for $400.......but gotta wait for 3-5 weekz though

opinionz plzzzzzz.........

I dont know how the second one says "actual Size"...when it depens on what res you got on your pc..hehehe its damn big if you got it on 640x480~ hehe

Nah seriously, i'd go the boomerang. Ive got friends that have them, they are good. Only thing i dont like about it, is you got the cables hanging everywhere cuase the sensor has to be some where open...it looks bad...see how you go.

Originally posted by OOHSAM

Only thing i dont like about it, is you got the cables hanging everywhere cuase the sensor has to be some where open...it looks bad

was it done @ Jetspeed?

Originally posted by Leon.T

was it done @ Jetspeed?

Yeah its in a friends car, holden astra, plates - DIGDIS

Jetspeed made the kit and fited the alarm...

cables for the sensor visible, but thats how its spose to be or it wont work properly. I aint knockin jetspeed, they are good.

The Benxon alarm looks like a pretty much copy of the Boomerang.

It has 5 buttons though, must mean easier access to options,

where as the boomerang, there are only 3 buttons hence you

must press them a multitude of times to get to the same feature.

Am i just going around in circles?

The Boomerang overall is a pretty niffy peice of hardware i must

admit. It does have the amplifier box which usually is clipped

to those glare flap things which I think is what OOHSAM was

refering to. It's only one cable about 5mm thick and goes behind

your pillar cover. I'd be suprised if the Benxon alarm didn't have

something simular.

The Boomerangs distance can be shorten drastically by concrete

buildings or buildings in general. This has been tried and proven.

I've seen alarms that state the same figures as the Boomerang

but work no where near as good.

I'm not saying the Boomerang is the best alarm, I know there

are better ones out there but for the functionabilty wise vs others

I've seen and trialed it is still ahead. The cost is the only

drawback. I've only tested the Boomerang so I can't comment on

the other one. Wether you choose to wait or spend more is up to

you.

Just thought i'd put my 2 cents worth with my experiences.

  • 1 month later...

Not wanting to rain on the parade guys but I dont think its a good move to discuss what alarms you all have/are buying especially where you have mentioned the rego of the vehicle concerned on this forum.

Just a thought

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...