Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

That yellow one is at SSV - I drive pas it every day. Apart from it being a horrendous colour and as a result, a liability to sell when the time comes - my Stagea came from SSV (who have been in the import biz since the beginning) and it was a great car, so I'd take all the 'dodgy' calls with a grain of salt.

I'd hold out for an rs4-s if you can. Stronger driveline (identical to r33 gt-r) much nicer interior, and arguably better on fuel.

Which brings about the next point - dont buy one of these unless you have shares in a petroleum company. They drink like fish. So for a family truckster, it might not be so nice. People who still own them will say otherwise but mine did 23L/100km around town with the occasional boot - and that was jus with basic mods and boost increase tuned on a greddy emanage ultimate......

Edited by SMOKEYC34

Which brings about the next point - dont buy one of these unless you have shares in a petroleum company. They drink like fish. So for a family truckster, it might not be so nice. People who still own them will say otherwise but mine did 23L/100km around town with the occasional boot - and that was jus with basic mods and boost increase tuned on a greddy emanage ultimate......

Clearly that isnt running properly. On my series 1 RS4V, "around town with the occasional boot" would be ~13.5L/100km. Usually 12.5L/100km trying to be economical around town, just under 11L/100km on the highway. 23L/100km is normal if you own a bentley.

Which brings about the next point - dont buy one of these unless you have shares in a petroleum company. They drink like fish. So for a family truckster, it might not be so nice. People who still own them will say otherwise but mine did 23L/100km around town with the occasional boot - and that was jus with basic mods and boost increase tuned on a greddy emanage ultimate......

Something very wrong with the state of tune. I can rape the crap out of mine for a whole tank and still get 20L/100km. In fact in 150,000kms ive never gone over 20L/100kms. Usually average around 13L/100kms.

had someone tell me once though not to go past 99' models anything later are not as good??

Pretty Silly comment really. Yes the newer models arnt as easy to modify and will cost more in basic needs as you cant just bolt any old Skyline part on them. But from teh factory they are a nicer driving car with a far superior interior. Along with that they have more power in standard form. There are more and more parts becoming available and as you live in Vic you are lucky as you have Scotty to go to for those much needed custom parts.

Really just comes down to what you are looking for, But as others have said unless its a manual and in perfect condition you are crazy to buy a C34 model thats over 10 grand.

IMO get the newer M35 and visit Scotty for some go fast bits :)

Lol. Well someone better call Paul at Chasers and tell him he can't tune.....buzz not.

It might have been before or after the emanage was in. - I can't remember - bit what I distinctly remember was the way it would R&R at anything over stock boost and engage a secret getaway fuel vapor cloud from the exhaust haha.

Anyway - great cars - but still heavy on fuel.

OP - If you want me to swing past SSV and have a look at that yellow one just let me know.

Hey Kurt,

Both C34 and M35 have great aspects to them. Only way you will settle down on one is inspect a few THOROUGHLY, compare features vs condition vs price vs year vs mileage vs what it is you want the car for vs how long you wish to keep it for.

Mate, my M35 Axis is for sale, have a closer look as per the link in my signature.

This will be up for sale in early January....

http://nissansilvia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=514332&st=0&p=6600283&hl=shopping%20trolley&fromsearch=1entry6600283

Will be in VIC for the start of Jan if you want to check it out. Pm me for more details if you're interested

You might need a boat but this one looks the go!!

http://www.carsales....ck&sort=default

Haha, i was gonna find your add Andrew and put it in here but you beat me to it

OP, you should totally buy this one, but it would be sad for tassie to loose another stagea

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...