Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am currently undertaking a big overhaul of my 33 GTST and part of that has been adding a new interior. While I had everything out I decided I may as well do all the soundproofing I have read so much about and well......went a little crazy and have pretty much covered every space I can think of within the cabin including the roof lining and behing the back seat.

The only thing is I have mostly used 10mm closed cell sound proofing foam (Except for the front doors which has both foad and proper dynamat)and this has been glued onto the car using contact adhesive so it will NOT come off IMO.

Some pics so you can see what I am talking about

IMG_0328.jpg

IMG_0384.jpg

IMG_0385.jpg

IMG_0386.jpg

IMG_0387.jpg

IMG_0389.jpg

IMG_0391.jpg

Now I am at the stage of cleaning up the boot and decised to line it in the foam as well because believe it or not it actuall does kill off a LOT of road noise.

My mrs reminded my that I have two 12" subs in a box in our spare room which although almost brand new have been sitting around for about 7 years. They are nothing special but I thought they would add an extra bit of bass/low down sound if I was to throw them in the boot (With extra amp of course)

As I am really not that well educated with car stereo stuff could the knowledgeable people around here please advise me as to wether I am wasting my time because of all the extra soond proofing between the boot and the cabin (back seat area)puuting the subs in the boot. Will I actually be able to hear them or have I sound proofed myself into a corner so to speak.

Thanks

D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/357065-am-i-wasting-my-time/
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to sound proof the whole boot (if weight isn't a question) and leave between the boot and cabin. In some areas of high panel resonance I'd heard of people slicking weights to the resonating area with a strong 3M tape to change the resonant frequency to something that isn't as affected by road noise. Dunno if it works but, haven't seen any true test results.

Thanks mate but that's the problem, the area between the cabin and the boot is already soundproofed and the foam has been stuck on to the bit behind the back seat with contact adhesive.....bloody strong stuff that will never let go.

Im just unsure wether I have blocked out too much of noise that will come from the boot to make the subs usefull

I can tell you that you have done a good job of it. that siad IF you can get the foam off - do so. if not - pull the rear speakers out. that will help things to a point.

A heat gun will remove anything :P

Then eucalyptus will remove the sticky crap.

However there is no harm in trying it out how you have it. - I've always wondered if you'd get superior bass (SPL wise) if you had the box mounted deep in the boot, subs facing backwards in a ported box with ports tuned to come through the parcel shelf. :) Doo it :D

Only way you'd truly know (again SPL wise) would have been doing a road test with sound proofing everywhere cept between cab and boot, with a dB meter. Then testing again WITH proofing between can and boot. I like how thorough you've been, the mid and top end should sound great. Get road tyres that focus on low noise as well? :)

Edited by GTRPowa

I can tell you that you have done a good job of it. that siad IF you can get the foam off - do so. if not - pull the rear speakers out. that will help things to a point.

Thanks for the kind words I was wondering wether I overdid it as I was kind of winging it!!

Correct me if I'm wrong cause I am in no way well educated with car sound but wouldn't removing the rears kind of make things sound uneven?

Maybe I'll just chuck the box in and see how it goes, no biggy as I have it here anyway and it does have two of the port thingys built in. I might be able to rig something up to get the ports comming out at the parcel tray what do you think?

GTRPowa, forgot to mention earlier when you mentioned soundproofing the boot as well, I will definately be doing it. That's the good thing about the foam, it ways bugger all. I bought around 7metres of the 10mm and 5.5m of the 5mm and all up it widths less than 5kg. For example the two front doors in the proper stuff is heavier that the entire car lined in foam including a second layer inside the front doors.

That's the good thing about the foam, it ways bugger all. I bought around 7metres of the 10mm and 5.5m of the 5mm and all up it widths less than 5kg.

...and can't hear screams coming from the boot (whilst disposing of wife who should have reminded you earlier about spare 12" subs)??? :P

...and can't hear screams coming from the boot (whilst disposing of wife who should have reminded you earlier about spare 12" subs)??? :P

Hahaha, exactly Terry.

I forgot all about the subs it's been so long. I've done such a good job of keeping the car noise out of the cabin that I dunno wether I want to go backwards for the sake of a bit of bass that will ultimately produce rattles and vibrations????

Maybe I should just pit some good 6x9's in the back for the extra bass

I did exactly what your doing now to my Beetle yrs ago. it made a huge difference in sound and heat inside the car (external oil coolers and thermos under the back parcel shelf and solid mounted engine and gearbox). it made it almost bearable in daily use.

go the subs, and leave some nice 6's in the back. 6x9's are over rated. and aparently a bit of a squeeze in a liner without making a whole new shelf or spacers etc.(don't cut the parcel shelf itself)

Edited by boiracer

a sound proof car is fine, bass is non directional below certain freq. you will still feel it shake the car, you can vent it it behind the rear guards between the boot and rear seat sides, if your creative. or remove the rear speakers and replace the grills again. then you will hear it fine. my car is even more soundproof then that ,

I moved my rear speakers mids and tweeters over and ported (tuned properly)the bass thru the factory holes right from the sub box. so if your creative you can do it with ease. notice the rear deck is now fiberglass molding of a factory one then modified . but no metal was cut in the car for any of the system. so not defectable !!!

6x9s suck, and cutting the holes is a structual defect !!!

Dave074

What you have done is looking good.

It is not overkill; I have done way more deadening on our 33 than you did.

I would highly recommend removing the oval shape panel behind the back seat, there is a huge difference to the amount of sound that you can get out of the boot :-)

I have seen a few people mount 6x9’s in the back but remember do not cut the rear panel. Also if you are going to mount the subs in the boot give the 6x9’s a miss. A set of 6 inch will be more than enough for rear fill.

90% of the time I do not have rear speakers in at all, now that I have to get the baby seat in the back they are pretty much only in at shows.

Anyway keep up the good work

Simon

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...