Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

we have a 73 convertible mustang. nice to have the wind in my long shiny silky hair. well not really. when discussing whether or not to get a 69 fastback restored for us, my dad complained about liking the open topped one with wind and noise etc. :rofl:

convertibles are nice to be in, but i don't really like the look of them over coupes/fastbacks (although, it depends on the car)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-907980
Share on other sites

Convertibles look nice but there are far too many that don't have the go to match, ie they're just pose-mobiles. MX5 is a great car, but the asthmatic four banger doesn't do the chassis justice - my old 202 Commodore could beat them in a straight line. Work it hard, bolt on a turbo, or do an engine swap, and they're a formidable opponent at the track. Having not driven one, I'd guess an Elise would be similar - with a fantastic chassis like that, why oh why did they put such an underpowered engine in? Another 100 or so hp would make the car so much more enjoyable. Yes they're still quick point to point but for crying out loud, give it some power!

I've driven a few cars that have been really good in the corners and under brakes but seriously lacking under the bonnet, and although still plenty of fun, they end up just being frustrating.

I chopped a poser in an F355 convertible big time on my bike, had his missus in the car giving him a hard time too :rofl:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-907998
Share on other sites

some people are led to thinking that convertibles are lighter and therefore a bit quicker, when in actual reality, they are a tiny bit heavier because the roof which holds the whole car structure is gone, and heavy steel struts have to be inserted into the sides to strengthen the chassis. also some roofs have electric motors which adds to the weight. but hey if u like the wank factor, go 4 it

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908006
Share on other sites

some people are led to thinking that convertibles are lighter and therefore a bit quicker, when in actual reality, they are a tiny bit heavier because the roof which holds the whole car structure is gone, and heavy steel struts have to be inserted into the sides to strengthen the chassis. also some roofs have electric motors which adds to the weight. but hey if u like the wank factor, go 4 it

bahahaha... yes indeed.

electric roof + reinforcement + air conditioning sitting in there doing nothing except being heavy = 73 mustang

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908041
Share on other sites

there's a ghey SAU NSW running around in a ghey 350zx convertible... what was his name... like he din have "i'm goin thru a midlife crisis" written all over him :rofl:

Heyyyy that him in the pic!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908058
Share on other sites

Dunno why but i think the S13 convertible with either an S15 front bar or a 180SX front bar looks HOT. There was on at prestige a while ago with the 180 nose... sexy.
Wait till you drive one of those cvnts... lol my mate has one (green S14 convertible, 180sx front, number plate "ONEVIA" and yeah its a bit sluggish to maneuvre...
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908190
Share on other sites

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...