Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys my front reo has been modified previosly to fit fmic. however i have no support on the bottom or sides of my front bumper. is this support seperate to the reo and its been removed on my car. or is it part of the reo and mine has simply.been hacked up.

cheers

patrick

post-88652-0-95051000-1363754713_thumb.png

there looks like theres nothing wrong with your reo bar, the front bumper on the sides screws up into the quarter panels, and there are no supports on the bottom, there is the plastic liner that screws into the bottom of the bar though, but not structural, the only bit that really needs to be modded for a fmic is the part where the core may hit it,

i have recently done my fmic so i sorta remember what it looks like

there looks like theres nothing wrong with your reo bar, the front bumper on the sides screws up into the quarter panels, and there are no supports on the bottom, there is the plastic liner that screws into the bottom of the bar though, but not structural, the only bit that really needs to be modded for a fmic is the part where the core may hit it,

i have recently done my fmic so i sorta remember what it looks like

Sorry I meant to edit my first post, that is a pic i found. Mine only has the main metal reo, no side liner or plastic part in the middle. Did your originally have the lining and the plastic part under the main metal reo?

Edited by Pattey21

if that is your reo bar it looks uncut to me

i like most to fit an fmic had to cut little triangles out for each side of the core cause the reo bar wouldnt fit back on without,

the only other bits i had to cut is on the front bar, i had to cut the black plastic stuff thats in the large center hole and abit from the lower left and right duct under the fog lights

yeah it kinda does but there are two screws on either side which screw them up into the quarter panels which holds it in place, and on the bottom side if you still have your splash gaurds, i think they are called will screw into the bottom of the bumper but i dont think that really matters too much its more connecting it to the reo and into the panels

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...