Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

OK, one guys reckons it a photchop.. here's his comments & reasoning.. I tend to agree.

1749-2.jpg

Ron B. - 6/17/2004 8:22:17 PM

Title: Definitely Photoshopped

Comment: Definitely PHOTOSHOPPED. Look at the interior of both of these cars through the windshield as well as the A-pillar detail. What sold me was the little horizontal line that is reflecting light in the rear seat area of both cars.

ok another one 4 photo shop check the left hand front window the reflection in it is still & not blurred as the car is moving in the 1st one the window is black & has no reflection at all then again the reflection of the photo car can be seen on the car also

but I say pics are :bs!:

Yup, so what chassis is that then hey??? X36???

Pffft, every week theres some 'tard (I wouldn't be suprised if it was a yank) whos just discovered Skylines last month who comes up with yet another misleading photochop.

At last people that agree with me, the modern Nissans look like recycled citreons, sh1t the French have been trying to sell their idea of what a car should look like to the world for decades, and the same design gets uglier with every passing year.

They might be able to build a motor or cook a frog, but they couldn't style a galvanised bucket.

http://www.renault.com/datamedia/doc/media..._Fluence_GB.pdf

Lets hear it for the French...Hooraaaay

Just another perfect example of a lazy car manufacturer, but they have a long way to go if they want to steal the "Top Spot" off General Motors.

Lets hear it for Renault...

CLAP,CLAP,CLAP...

I think you guys are on crack, that car looks alrite, better than the 350 and better than the dumpy v35, it's also definitely better than an r33 or r34, ie it doesn't have that sport sedan look. First half decent nissan I've seen in a while.

As much as I like skylines, they were never real lookers so that's an improvement to be honest.

The two picture are different cars btw, the angle and perspective is mildly different, just reference check any sections and you can tell, though elements of the second have been photoshoped into the first.

Well I like the first one, its nice and progressive. Sure it doesn't look like the 32,33,34 line, but did they look like a 30/31? Times change.

Secondly, some of you guys are kidding, like it or not renault bought nissan becauase they were going to go broke form making overengineered cars like skylines and silvias. If they'd left them alone they'd be in the same position as Mitsubishi are now. They just need to go thru a cycle of saving money so they can spend some elsewhere.

And the 350z is a great car.

First pic looks the same as the production car for the new skyline GTR.

I like the look of the first pic, looks like it's from the future and I really like that look, If i have the money when they come out I'd buy one straight away and bring over here.

It's two different cars thou, as parts on each car are different, look at the bonnets of each car for a start , the beveel in the bonnet of the first car would take a long long time to do, and hard to get right for each change in angle.

Also the angles of each car are complete different, if both cars were the same, then maybe but looking at the wheels the 2 cars are travelling are different speeds, the first car is going slower.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...