Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I didn't intend for that to happen. I just wanted to open his eyes so he would realise that people like him is part of the problem!

Oh well. Next time I'll just keep my trap shut. Don't want to cause people to leave this wonderful organisation!

  '[EVL_R33 said:
']Jason, you put forward a good point and i accept that i am part of the problem, that is why i have made the choice to leave and come back when i have became more mature. My account will be delete 2morrow by request of me

Don't be silly .... we don't want to see anybody leave.

I didn't see the previous thread but its just a case of not acting immaturely ie. the other young fellas in the "take me for a ride" thread. If everyone acts maturely then it'll return to being a fun and informative forum :cheers:

  JiMiH said:
Don't be silly .... we don't want to see anybody leave.

I didn't see the previous thread but its just a case of not acting immaturely ie. the other young fellas in the "take me for a ride" thread. If everyone acts maturely then it'll return to being a fun and informative forum  :cheers:

My point and sentiment exactly Jimih. Unfortunately I threw in a few too many "you're a tool mikey"'s for his liking I think.

My intention was to just open his eyes to see that he is part of the problem, but also that he can be part of the solution.

Treatem mean to keepem keen is my motto :rofl:

ppl like me never know what's going on coz the threads get deleted before we even get a chance to read what's going on.

happens too often, but that's the point i guess....oh well i will shut up now.

I disagree with you Mikey.. i think the thread was a good idea provided it brought forward input and foresight from all members, esp the ones that have been here awhile.. Even though Mikey says he is part of the problem, he did the right thing by addressing the issue rather than just saying "Oh SAU is shit coz of the n00bs, coz of this, coz of that, blah blah"..

i thin everyone is very interested in this topic and it can be very beneficial for all of us to discuss this openly.. Mikey - make a new topic and we all contribute as positively as possible.. no pisstaking, no sarcasm..

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 馃槃  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
  • Create New...