Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

With all the recent hype of massive chromies and dumped suspension, im just curious to know what look is favoured at the moment.

We have my previous Bling setup of 19s and uncomfortably low suspension (as in signature pic), and my current very drivable setup of 17's and sensible suspension.

Which gets the vote!?

BuddyClubP1.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/84780-function-or-bling/
Share on other sites

I much prefer the bling look, but the buddy's still look very nice..

My car had work rims on it red lip, black inner... looked track but didn't appeal to me.. so i changed to 18's and dropped it 3.75" and i think it looks way better.

Dayne

looks good both ways, although i'd take it in the top pics because i'm not a fan of those particular 19's...

but all depends on what you're going for...if you want just pure looks, and dont mind a bumpy ride, or if you want it to be functional and smoother...

bronze and the orange look great..

those chromies looked a bit too stupid, and way to low at the rear. Usually i laugh at cars like that, just as they obviously are going for a certain look, which must have to make the car more difficult to drive everywhere.

the chromies look ok because they fill the guards more.... if the track rims were one inch bigger it would be awesome... otherwise the track look is more suitable to the car and means its actually being used as a peformance car not a cruiser :(

so the buddys/track look is more popular so far which is good to know.. On the GTSt's 19s are too big for decent handling IMO. apart from adding to the unsprung weight, the rolling diameter is significantly taller than the stock 16's, for which the suspension geometry was designed to work with! not trying to start a suspension thread tho :(

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

    • Version 1 aluminium airbox is.......not acceptable No pics as I "didn't like the look.....alot" Even after all my "CAD", and measurements, the leg near the fusebox just didn't sit right as it ended up about 10mm long and made the angle of the dangle look wrong, the height was a little short as well, meh, I wasn't that confident that Version 1 was going to be an instant winner I might give Version 2 another go, there's plenty of aluminium at work, but, after having in on and off a few times, and laying in the old OEM airbox without the new pod filter and MAF, there may be an option to modify the OEM air box and still use the Autoexe front cover and filter.... maybe This >  Needs to fit in here, but using the panel, and not the pod, the MAF will need to fit in the airbox though> I'm thinking as the old OEM box and Autoexe cover that is sitting in the shed is just sitting around doing nothing, and they are relatively abundant and cheap to replace if I mess it up and need another, it may well fit with some modifications to how the Autoexe brackets mounts to the rad support, and some dremiling to move it get in there, should give me some more room for activities, as I don't want to move the MAF and affect the tune Sealing the hole it requires to stick it in the air box is simple, a tight fit and some pinch weld will seal it up tight  I am calling this a later problem though
    • and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol. Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.  
    • Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.
    • There is a warning that "this thread is super old" but they ignore that anyway...
    • With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss.    My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 
×
×
  • Create New...