Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was thinking that if I could afford to go all out on my car, I'd respray it in matte black. It'd give the car that "prototype" look, like you see in all the mags and stuff.

After that, I'd just need to get my car on the Nurburgring :blink:

just do it, dont be a wuss. it would look fat as, aslong as the car is quick with a tough looking kit, and then get some black vinyl stickers made up and put all over the car. so the only part that is glossy is your shopping list down the doors... get a big g/f gt wing, and a c/f bonnet, and some bronze volks, pure racing style....would look awesome. i wouldnt want to race anything that has gone to that much trouble to make it not stand out....

the r32 looks unreal, but the 180 looks like primer, it needs bigger rims and bolt on flares.

do it!

the trouble with fingerprints cannot be worse than the trouble black gloss has with showing dirt, can it??? mines black and it drives me crazy

post-6966-1125383524.jpg

those pics of that matte black r32 look fkn hot

but im sure it'll only look good in fotos where u cant see the smudginess of it .. :D

Hi guys,

Dunno if you guys are still interested in matt/satin paint anymore but i've just come across these pics.

161100_4938-med.jpg

6705bbq-y-small-med.jpg

The skyline in the last 2 pics, i know for sure are satin finishes. Pretty sweet i reckon.

Cheers.

omg those 2 gtst's look SO HOT!

IMHO

Matte Black should be saved for circuit/drift cars. Also it only really suits certain chapes. The R34/R33??? NO WAY, R32/180SX??? HELL YES!!!

The R32 with the Work Emotions and the QLD 180SX look very tough in Matte.

I'd never have a road car in Matte Black but I would certinaly have a circuit ONLY car in Matte Black.

Go Gloss for the road.

I say go for it - however.....Your car will have to be gunbarrel straight or it will look ghetto. It will actually need to be done by someone pretty good on the gun to look smooth. And definitely satin, not matte.

Satin with carbon fibre details would look very stealth...

If I ever get to build a track HR31, it will definitely be satin black.

Imagine how f**king hard it'd be to scrub off bugs and shit off matt/satin finish!! Its hard enough in gloss.

On the plus side you might stealth your way thru radars an speed cameras :P (although mythbusters tried that and it didn't work).

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...