Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Mmmmmm.....nismo carbon rear view cover.

I just love new parts especially oem parts........all this build just does is motivates me to spend more money on my build lol

  • Like 1

The Nismo reear vision cover looks amazing when on. Though i would paint the existing full rear vision mount black as the grey stands out heaps when you put the cover on. Sorry for the image quality, this is mine on:

post-92069-0-24175500-1392953037.jpg

The Nismo reear vision cover looks amazing when on. Though i would paint the existing full rear vision mount black as the grey stands out heaps when you put the cover on. Sorry for the image quality, this is mine on:

post-92069-0-24175500-1392953037.jpg

also anf, I would not paint but just put some 3M carbon scothcprint on that area

also anf, I would not paint but just put some 3M carbon scothcprint on that area

Holy crap even better idea. I have some left over from doing my door cards. I know what im doing this weekend!

My thread is coming slowly. Gotta get around to making one. The box has clear on it now. Around 4 coats just to reduce stone chipping.

Gonna grab one of those nismo covers to next order. :)

hey Robbie - what is the last picture of in your last post ?

All the rest I have but bugger me if I can work that last one out mate

Im going to take a guess and think its a number plate bracket right?

Im going to take a guess and think its a number plate bracket right?

Its the fire extinguisher bracket mentioned earlier that mounts at the front of the drivers seat.

Glad we all agree Nismo cover is the business :thumbsup:

So got the adaptors finished off

DSC01920.JPG

And this guy in

DSC01930.JPG

DSC01931.JPG

Hadn't peeled the clear of this yet in photo

DSC_0881.JPG

Wasn't happy with the way this guy was sticking, got some 3M transfer tape (very thin)

DSC_0871.JPG

DSC_0872.JPG

Then this happened Sunday arvo :(

DSC_0890.JPG

DSC_0893.JPG

No damage except a tiny nick out of the fan shroud. Yet to find out what the cause was, but have since heard the Ross balancers are a common cause...yet to look into it further

That sucks!

Is it the Ross Metal Jacket Race, or the regular Metal Jacket?

I know that there is a new revision that only comes with under driven pulleys to avoid this problem. Maybe you have the old revision?

Edited by Jazzadub

That sucks!

Is it the Ross Metal Jacket Race, or the regular Metal Jacket?

I know that there is a new revision that only comes with under driven pulleys to avoid this problem. Maybe you have the old revision?

Fkn oath!

Running the one below. Just metal jacket. Looks like you're spot on Jeremy...

IMG_5604.JPG

There is another one now listed below on the website, looks like I will have to get onto Ross and see what he can offer

NISSAN 306212 METAL JACKET HARMONIC BALANCER - RB26-R32 20%U/DRIVE P/STEER

Edited by $$slowmedown

Yea that's unfortunate.

You can also get a pulley kit like below which could solve the problem - this is a picture from Ross website.

But yes, I would talk to Ross to see what they recommend.

Nissan-RB26-Kit-1.jpg

Edited by Jazzadub

There is also another MJ revision 306202X2 which I'd say is version 2 of yours, which could save you having to go to an underdriven pulley?

Does the P/S pulley look different on this one compared to yours? Could be a better option than an ugly extra pulley?

mj306202.jpg

Edited by Jazzadub

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...