Jump to content
SAU Community

Problems with 1995 gtst

MISTIQUE
 Share

Recommended Posts

superspit Mentor

superspit

Posted
Posted
thats ironic, cause pretty much the only reason i dont like the S1 is cause of the front bar. i think its even got to the stage where i see a stock S1 and cringe at the sight of its front end.

as for the wings, i dont really mind the S1 wing cause its more subtle.

No, not 'ironic' my friend..............just subjective (ie.your very own opinion/taste). I too cringe when I see a beautiful 33line with the S2 'lego' front end!!! Go figure.

And....like yourself, me thinks the S1 tail is quite lovely, for a stocker!!!!!!!!!

:P

JimX Grand Master

JimX

Posted
Posted
No, not 'ironic' my friend..............just subjective (ie.your very own opinion/taste). I too cringe when I see a beautiful 33line with the S2 'lego' front end!!! Go figure.

Holy crap, I thought I was the only one. It was the main reason why I sought out the '95 model - series 1 front bar and interior (mm.. velour), series 2 goodies (ECU, titanium boot badge, erm, that's about it)

T0nyGTSt Grand Master

T0nyGTSt

Posted
Posted

I have said this before... I absolutely hate the S2 standard front end. The angular grille with the four big round lights... how did they manage to meld the square front end to the round rear?

It does look better in dark colours with a lip though.

Be that as it may, I think Brett's car always looked good ("BU5TER").

The grille and the Trust front bar, GT-R body pieces. The 'integration' in body design is back.

I am no fan of velour but whatever... the car interior is a nice place and I can't complain.

T.

rs73 Grand Master

rs73

Posted
Posted

well styling is very subjective....

some ppl prefer S2 front end yet some prefer S1. I like them both.

guess the squarish S2 front end is balanced by the squarish S2 rear spoiler... compared to the S1 curved rear spoiler. interior wise i prefer the look & material of S1 seat and dash, but prefer the S2 airbag steering wheel. exterior wise I like both S1 & S2 front end but only the S1 rear spoiler (curved one).

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • sinn3r
      R34 Skyline climate control unit transistor

      By sinn3r · Posted

      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
    • Kinkstaah
      Blue slip

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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!
    • GTSBoy
      Best place to order Authetic R32 Parts in Japan

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Ethanol Content Sensor - Always at 11%?

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Blue slip

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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...