Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

No, not the R35, but my R34!

Friday I collect my R34 GTT, but I've got a few qns about cost of parts for ya's...

It needs 4 new tyres. Front are 235/40/18's & rears are 265/35/18's. Currently Falkens.

All discs (may) need machining. Hopefully they don't end up under-size.

A couple of new brake pads.

One low beam headlight has blown & the opposite front parking light. I met an R34 owner last night who said a new headlight would set me back around $2,000 coz you can't replac the glode as they are the proper Xenon gas one's. Any truth in this?

Thanks in advance guys & hope to see you on the road shortly!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/55525-bring-on-the-new-skyline/
Share on other sites

should be able to replace the globes. failing that just buy a $500 HID Xenon conversion kit and use them instead.

Most people are just too lazy to look around.

Also for the tyres, if the tyres are roadworthy (legal tread left) and are DOT approved, then you don't have to change em.

More than likely they will not be xenon headlights as they must be converted as part of the compliance process. They will be the xenon casings converted to halogens. If so the halogen bulbs are cheap as chips. My parker blew and cost me all of $1 to replace.

As for tyres, you will have to spend a couple of hours ringing around all your local dealers and getting the best price you can. Check the steering/suspension/tyres forum for some recommendations as to decent but not over-priced tyres.

I also believe that 33 GTs-t pads fit the 34 which makes them a lot easier to track down.

Geez, I am now finding out how expensive imports are to maintain.

I can source the globes for $230 new & genuine  $30 for each parking globe.

Also got a price for an R34 manual gearbox from halfcut for $3,500 + $1,500 to fit.

You can buy parkers from supercheap for $2 for 4.

Or you can buy these white coloured halogen globes from Phillips at autobarn and they come with a free set of white coloured parker globes which are miles better than your average yellow coloured parker light.

Who is going to charge you $1500 to R+R gearabox ? Good work if you can get it !! Dont pay more than 500 for that .

How come you have to replace the box ?

If the car is not complied you will need to use stock size tyres , i think they are 225x50x17 but not 100% sure .

Geez, I am now finding out how expensive imports are to maintain.

I can source the globes for $230 new & genuine  $30 for each parking globe.

Also got a price for an R34 manual gearbox from halfcut for $3,500 + $1,500 to fit.

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

    • 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.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...