Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Right for starters I currently have my 2 door GTS25 R33 without a spoiler so the boot is sitting low. Im really not a huge fan of spoilers allthough I understand the benefits they can give. What I do want to do its essentially slope the sides of the boot lid so that they come up to reach the side of the rear quarters. The photo I have added is of a WRX Boot lid and is essentially what I want my boot lid to look like so the sides slant up. What I am looking for however is tips on how people think they would do this themselves? looking for some sound advice because as much as I have access to spare r33 bootlids I'd be happy to get it right first time.

My original thought was stagger duck tape to get the right slant and height then bondo the shape and sand it in, So you may see why I need help.

auto-part-impreza-wrx-9th-truck-cover-boot-lid.jpg

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/402428-custom-r33-boot-help/
Share on other sites

why not just get a flush boot lid, soo much less hassle.

in my opinion what you are trying to do will look like ass. You could also just get a drift lip and have it all moulded in, would be far easier and cheaper and i think it would look a whole lot better

I'll admit I hadn't thought about welding in metal but wont that weigh several tonnes? Would be easier to get accurate though.

Ha I may be hard to please but the straight flush boot just looks . . . odd to me. So I thought I'd have my hand at something a little different, I considered getting a Drift lip and chopping out the middle and moulding that in but I didnt want to ruin a perfectly good spoiler.

I may at the moment be able to get me a cheapo boot lid though so dependant on that I may mock it up and see how it looks, I reckon itd be good to have something different

  • 4 weeks later...

Touche, I'm currently searching around for a a welder I can borrow for said jobby, but if it gets to hard then Drift lip may have to be the basis of my work. Sketched it up with light cardboard a while ago but forgot to take photos, But when the weather shines up I'll do it again so people can see what I'm aiming for more clearly.

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...