Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey,

Just thought I'd post up that my car is currently featured in this months (November Issue #154) issue of Performance Imports and I'm stoked!! LOL :D

Just like to thank everyone here on the forums who have helped out, whether it be helping me put the car together or just contributing to the forums with their knowledge. I would literally spend hours trawling the forums for tech info and first hand accounts from everyone and without the extensive SAU database of knowledge, there would be no way I could've built the car up to the point it is now.

I made a special shoutout in the article about the SAU forums so once again, thanks heaps to everyone for making the forums so informative :cheers: I know SAU has a rich history of having member cars being featured in various magazines (and to be honest, some of the cars featured are downright mint compared to mine) so I guess you can add another car to the list :)

Here are the pics from the article so if you guys are interested, grab a copy to read more about it (sorry for dodgy phone pics).

IMG_1202.jpg

IMG_1203.jpg

IMG_1204.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/413589-performance-import-feature/
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, but I still reckon it's nowhere near as good as some of the ones I've seen featured from SAU (eg. can't remember the name but it's a white 32 GTR built to be a RH9 contender. Somewhere in Queensland I think. Dude also has a 33 GTR too)

Tai1or Made: S2 > S1 hahahahaha :P

Terry: Nah, it was some bloke called Jun I think. I heard about Eric Tang before and wouldn't getting some pics from him, but I heard he heavily digitally alters the photos though?

(and to be honest, some of the cars featured are downright mint compared to mine) so I guess you can add another car to the list :)

Mate im sure theres been nicer cars with bugets to much, but you've still got to have a very clear clean paint and panel work for a mag feature.

Very tidy!!!

Sorry Frosty, I never bothered to make a build thread :( I guess it would've come in handy as the car started stock and I've noticed a few people in the FI section ask about top mounting turbos, front facing plenums etc.

Thanks guys, but I still reckon it's nowhere near as good as some of the ones I've seen featured from SAU (eg. can't remember the name but it's a white 32 GTR built to be a RH9 contender. Somewhere in Queensland I think. Dude also has a 33 GTR too)

That'd be Ben Earl's R32 GTR drag car, built for 1000+ HP and located in Mackay far north QLD. If it is him your talking about, the car is INSANE to watch race and will give you an erection.

Yeah, I think that's the one Seano. Just remembered, the numberplates were something like RBE85 or something? Either way, tough car.

Thanks cul8er, good to hear you're getting a feature too! Looks like SAU has quite a few feature cars floating around :cheers:

Thanks cul8er, good to hear you're getting a feature too! Looks like SAU has quite a few feature cars floating around :cheers:

Yup + Great way to promote our club

...many thanks to Jason and his staff

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...