Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

We all know the 33 GTST lacks the tough stance like the GTR and looks a little anorexic, so Ive been thinking of putting some 400r type flared guards on my line to add a bit of width as Im getting a bonnet and front bar painted anyway.

I was wondering wether you guys could advise on wether I will need to get wider wheels with a better offset to fill the guard more??

Im currently running LMGT2 wheels 17 x 9 +38r on 255 40/17 and 17 x 8 +35f on 235 45/17 Street semi's so they are a little wider than a normal 255 becuase of the side walls (Azenis RT215). I know of a set of cheap LMGT2's for sale which I was thinking will get me the same offset front and rear I could maybe squeeze on a 265 tyre with the flares.

I'm not sure wether guard rolling will be an option as I think the fares are mounted on the bottom of the lip so it needs to be there AFAIK

The thing I dont want is that funny look like the old SLR toranas have with the flared guards an then these funny looking tyres 2 inches inside the guard which looks weird.

A few pics to show what the look Im after (Mainly the white one is the closest looking car to mine)

Thoughts?????????

post-31195-0-03183600-1311723327_thumb.jpg

post-31195-0-07670800-1311723352_thumb.jpg

post-31195-0-87547400-1311723367_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/372190-33-gtst-flared-guards-400r-type/
Share on other sites

Yeah true, but they are kind of sedate and not too chunky from what I can gather.

They look as though they are almost flush at the bottom part and really only add width up the top if you get me?

Eve flares are o lot more chunky I think???

If I was to leave my 33 as is I'll keep the LMGT2 rims, the way they are now fills out the current guards well enough. Plus LMGT2's in white are not very common (only ever seen a few cars with them, heaps in grey though)

I'm more just wondering if I will have enough rim/offset/dish IF I decide to get the flares.

I haven't ever seen any on a car other than photos so it's hard to get a proper idea of how they look.

If doing the rear gaurds wasn't such a damn mission on a GTST wide body kits would be so much more popular. I would definetely do some GTR gaurds onto it. Personally I would love to see GTR gaurds on a S2 GTST but with the S2 headlights and front bar (obviously modified to suit).

Im tempted to buy some secondhand guards and attempt a guard widening job, 1" V strip of metal along the top of guard tapering towards the headlight area weld it in and make a bracket for bottom back of guard for wide body front guard...

if you use those 400r type addons will that actually allow room for more tyre (without rolling the lip or anything) or are they just to bolster up the wheel arch area...???

Yep I think you guys are right. The add on flares don't give you anymore usable width under the guard.

Maybe like 10-15mm tops as long as the car isn't too low (mine is lowered but not by much)

The other thing too AFAIK is that you cannot mount the fares on a rolled lip as that is where they mount.

It's really just an aesthetic thing to give a tougher/wider looking stance from what I can work out.

Seems to be very mixed opinions on them, you either love them or hate them. Personally I like them but would like to trial fit them or at least see them in the flesh before I make up my mind. The last thing I want is the old Torana look lol

Oh and phil the is an old hpi where a guy put gtr rear guards onto a s2 ( purple car IIRC ) and I think even the guy who owned it said he wouldn't do it again

Yeah I bet. Looks like such a huge mission.

There is a wide body GTST in Townsville. GTR front gaurds, custom bodykit, BA falcon headlights and custom rear gaurds with like vents down the side. Looks very good from a distance (havn't seen it up close though).

Here's the only photo of it I have found.

post-35676-0-64912800-1311900579_thumb.jpg

Hahahaha i'm just talking about the widebody kit on it. I don't like the front of it at all.

Turns out I found a thread about it/them.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/topic/97902-ford-xr-front-light-conversion-more-r33/page__p__1777813

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...