Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I was doing a mod to my tail lights today. After removing the inside black plastic trim and rear door rubber, to my shock i found 3 main points that could creat bad rust if not treated!

First point is the top bracket of the tail lights, mine had surface rust so i removed it from the light assembly and used a wire wheel on a grinder to remove all rust. I then cleaned it up, primed and painted.

Second point is behind the rear door striker rubbers. The mounting bracket seems to get a small amount of surface rust on the front side of them, but when i removed them there was even more rust behind them and it is in direct contact with the paint.

So same as above i removed the rust via a wire wheel, and painted. I also had to lightly sand the body at the bolt up contact point to remove a very same amount of surface rust starting to form on the paint to repair and touch up.

(this could turn into a major rust spot if left untreated as its in direct contact with the body, unlike the light bracket which has a rubber washer.)

Third point is at the top sill of the rear door/hatch. It appears the compliancer was a bit lazy when fitting the child restraint points in my car as there was metal shavings everywhere under the rubber at the top of the door. after drilling the holes to attach the restraint points they obviously did not vacuum or blow out the steel shaving and just left to sit there they will rust away and cause your paint to get rust spots or worse.

I also decided to remove the restraint points to clean under them and there was more shavings under them...... to clean up this area i highly recommend people to remove the restraints and scrap back the silicon under the bolting tab at the top of the sill. clean it all up and refit the restraints with new silicon.

Remember you wont be able to see these rust points unless you remove the door rubber and black plastic pieces on the side of the tail lights.

I hope this thread will help our cars last longer!

For some reason i cant attach the photos (not to big either)??????? if a mod wants me to email the pics to them so they can attach, no probs.

Thanks

Justin.

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...