Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it would be the "factory released" argument, like lambo's and porsches can get away with having roadscraping ride height because it's from factory. They would never let a "normal" road car be chromed.

martydaman...

i dont think the jag is for sale, it just an advertisement thing. it wouldnt be legal, and it would cost too much.....

i have seen ads with the chrome jag in magazines more than 6 years ago(national geographic magazine).. so its a long term advertisement thing.

making the body out of aluminium will not magically make the car half the weight... i would say manufacturers only make parts of the body out of the stuff if the car is getting excessively heavy.

a few cars that i know of that have aluminium(some only parts of the car) panels that are still TANKS: (or not light compared to other cars similar size/class)

audi a8 (1750kg)

audi a2

audi 80 (1460kg)

honda nsx (1390 not)

skyline GTR (1560)

bmw 6 series (even has plastic bootlid, ugly one too!) (1815!!!!)

i saw a 645 the other day with 21' bmw rims lots of dish and lowered.. 295 rear section tyres, looked good from front and side...dog ugly from the rear though. rims/tyres must have been like 30kg each!

it would be the "factory released" argument, like lambo's and porsches can get away with having roadscraping ride height because it's from factory. They would never let a "normal" road car be chromed.

they are still legal height!

or else they get around it somehow ie. the last of the diablos had adjustable height front suspension for driveways etc. 4wd style lol.

You can always tell when its school holidays...

The Mercs that were linked were a special run (I think only three from memory) for promo shots. The Jag was just for the release of the new XJ and is not and was not sold without paint.

It would be illegal to chrome a bonnet because it would create a hazard for both you and other motorists.

LW.

pfffft!

sight is highly overated as long as i have a big fully sick turbo and can pull chicks with my car bro... LOL...

never mind no chrome bonnet for me:)

Im a chick and i think you'd look liek a total spanker

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...