Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yeah darkest legal... meh i still like it

thats what i thought, and thats why i'm getting my "legal" tint changed to 20% or so as i'm pretty disapointed with my current light tint :)

BTW: i actually got my first tint done when SAU had a group discount going 2 years ago :(

yeah, and they charge about $60 for removal of old tints - apparently its not just a case of peeling of the old ones :)

also people should know that 20% tint is $30 more.

Its still cheap compared with normal prices but i've decided to keep my old tint as i'm short on cash :)

Just so people know as I do not see it on this thread, 4 door cars do cost more.

Apparently for 4 door cars a price of $195 was agreed

Still cheap but posting so others know.

When i booked my cefiro in i said it was a 4 door, and the price was still $145 ????

No worries alan, your car looks great...

hmmm I've organised this group tint but my cars taking so long at the painters that I'm still a few weeks off getting it tinted, let alone registered arrghhh...

Cheers mate, was very impressed myself with the results also.

I am sure they would hold the offer for you as the organiser given the circumstances with your car being built.

How do I put a thumbnail image up like that as I tried to work that out earlier viewing the code. I made sense of it but is there a quicker way?

I know nothing about tinting, so here's a couple of questions:

What is the % of tinting of exactly? Is it what you can see from the inside of the car (when standing outside)... Does this mean that the lower the % the darker the tint?

I assume that there is a 'darkest legal tint' because people (police) might like to see inside the car... or is it that the darker the tint (from the outside) the harder it is to see out of the car from the inside?

cheers guys

:D

The % that is referred to is the amount of light let in i.e 35% So if the % is less, the tint is darker as it lets less light in. I have 20% on my back window.

I believe the darkest legal tint refers is so that visability out of the car is still good rather than looking into the car. With my tint, it is quite black from the outside, looking in but looking out when driving, there is barely a difference IMO.

When I got to the tint place, the guy already had a package he suggested which was the 35% windows and 20% rear which I think is being offered to all people. The 20% rear normally costs a bit more but they are doing it inclusive from what he said to me.

HTH and if anyone disagrees, please correct me

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

    • 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
    • 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!
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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...