Jump to content
SAU Community

  

11 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Dan - i *think* it's called the 3910 cefiro..

it's the red and white pair of cefiros from japan with the white rims

made a lot of noise on japcar blogs late last year...

i think the rims were were origin DNA???

can anybody please post pics? they all seem to be dead links... :( there's a red one and a white one :)

stock bodied iirc!

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cheers big ears

See stock is sexy...

Make a copy of the bumper.. Tweak the mouth a bit.. Maybe turn it upside down so it doesn't "smile"

And extend the front lip / replace it with a shakotan chin spoiler...

I'd do that. Just clean with no swoop

Not a fan of the stock bar/lip at all. I can see the advantages of it on a street car though, no uber flares or superlow cop-bait features.

Quick update: Company I'm talking to is chasing down the possibility of producing a symmetrical Autech S1 kit in plastic.

Company I'm talking to is chasing down the possibility of producing a symmetrical Autech S1 kit in plastic.

i want in on this gangbang.

I get the feeling I'm going to get shot if this falls through... so i'll throw it out there. NO PROMISES!!!

Personally I'm happy with a fibreglass kit if it's not going to cost a squillon dollars and there's a mold but I'll keep everybody posted on the progress.

My only problem with the stock bars is that they bend inwards too much / become to narrow.

Compare inside bottom of bumper to where the doors / body are on the chassis.

Should atleast be inline with that. Or where the park light / indicator is where it joins the fender, straight drop downwards, rather than merge back in.

By comparison, all aftermarket kits overfix this by going bullshit wide with the flaring (ie Uras)

IMO This is why Autech is sought after, it keeps the car "stock looking" somewhat as Rowan suggested, and also squares up the shape of the body a bit without going over the top. Subtle yet very effective.

Edited by Nic_A31

I get the feeling I'm going to get shot if this falls through...

shot? no. banned? yes. :D no pressure.

lol I need plastic cos my stock front bar (no splitter) sits 2inches off the ground at the current height. Autech is lower so it'll sit nice and low. At that height fibreglass will shatter when I go over a lane marker/rock.

Instant gentleman would be sweet, but:

1) too much work to make a mould

2) doesn't really suit the square faces of the ceffy. Chaser etc are much more rounded.

Autech's the only one that goes straight down and doesn't look mad homo by flaring out. You can buy good quality fibreglass Autech kits from aeromaster.jp pretty cheap... but it's kinda pointless.

I'd like to see Autech series 1, "widened" mouth, symmetrical hole on the drivers side,

and something I've always wanted to see....... what about incorporating the factory side illumination lamps?

^^ this is a good idea , i wouldn't go too much wider with the 'mouth' probably 3-5cm each way?

Widened mouth? How big are the coolers you're running to need a widened mouth?

I'll ask about the add on lip next time we speak but i'm going with the symmetrical Autech bar for now as it's simple (which hopefully means cheap). Baby steps, IF that works out then I'll start looking at other stuff like the lip, roof spoiler and so on.

Edited by a31rb25

and something I've always wanted to see....... what about incorporating the factory side illumination lamps?

If this happens and I get one, I'm just gonna cut mine to put the lamps in... should be pretty straightforward.

Latest news: For legal reasons any design has to be different, so...... an Autech bar with a symmetrical intake would be enough. As would the TBO bar with a less pronounced full lip (doesn't recess at the mouth). Same goes with any other kit pieces.

Plastic molding is not a financially viable option - one place was happy happy to do it but wanted $25K up front to make the mold - metal molds, plastic injection. On top of that would be materials, labour, etc.

Still waiting to hear back about FRP. Fibreglass is looking like the best option at the moment.

Ideas on tweaks for these rear bars? (I've chosen these for ease of molding)

1)

400x350-2010072900061.jpg

2)

600x400-2008102200443.jpg

3)

aeromasterjp-img600x450-1189240018a31t1rok.jpg

Edited by a31rb25

I prefer the last Autech pic. With the "bubbles" around the number plate section.

I know, all you haters hate them on the front and rear bars, but stfu, I reckon it looks better with them,

As for tweaking them, I dunno...I'll let others decide.

I prefer the last Autech pic. With the "bubbles" around the number plate section.

I know, all you haters hate them on the front and rear bars, but stfu, I reckon it looks better with them,

As for tweaking them, I dunno...I'll let others decide.

+1 , Make the D part beside the number plate slightly shorter (or the number plate hole bigger to accomodate adm numberplates) and make the exhaust cut out wider . AAAaaand if you look at a stock rear bar , they have a groove just under the tail lights , you could add that in?

Combine both those Autech bars.

The S2 is flat at the bottom, the S1 (1st pic) isn't.

I dont like how the S1 flares on the sides as it heads back to the wheel arches though.

Keep it even along the sides, have that cut out in the middle rear, THAT, on a series 2 Autech.

If its even, it'll make the whole car look better when slammed. A bumper that is uneven in edge (ie S1 Autech, Uras, Dianna, etc) looks shitty. More "boxed" shape like S2 Autech. Does that even make sense?

As Toffy said, widder to accomodate Aus plates.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...