Sarumatix

Not sure anyone has ever made that mistake before . Certainly doubt it happens regularly enough for anyone to want to speak in absolute terms . I guess it comes down to time and money as to what the 'right' way to fix your mistake is, ask your mechanic?

Dan that is R33 GT-R wheel size right? How do these tyres stack up against the Kumho KU36?

This is a fairly good way to summarize this thread. I am currently starting a very simple build up of a gts-t because I find them a more entertaining drive than the gt-r, I don't hold any delusions of it being faster at this stage. I welcome someone to make the fastest possible rwd R32. That said, Russel from Sau Vic has a nasty habit of beating all the GT-Rs in his gts-t at quite a number of events .

My Noise RB was fixed with a fujitsubo, my quiet RB already had a fujitsubo. Different models, both slightly louder than stock (3.5inch), if that still isn't good enough get another resonator welded inline. http://www.nengun.com sell them internationally AFAIK.

Thank you for pointing that out, I thought it was a little small. Hit divide instead of multiply . 3,434,119.200 tonnes or 2.6ish% of world volcanic atmospheric carbon output as quoted from the Galileo Movement. I found my info from a variety of sources none of which were rocket science to find, wiki has a figure, US energy Administration has a figure (2202734896.815L), world bank, CIA, etc etc. I did say it was from a quick google search not from any current research. I put per day when I (obviously) meant per year and continued on the rest of the calculation using per year as I was trying to use the same units as was quoted to me. Sorry for any confusion the end answer is still reported correctly (per year). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html I made a typo of million billion when what I meant to write was (obviously): Which equates to a not unbelievable 0.012 barrels per person per day in the world (with a population of 6.92 billion) including the poor and disadvantaged in the world. CIA You can believe whoever and whatever you want, obviously you are as capable as I of doing your own research and drawing your own conclusions. I don't expect anything and i'm grateful you took the time to pick up on my typos as it is an important topic worth discussing (unlike so much dribble that goes around and is considered important). I never professed to being an expert because it is not my area of interest and has little to do with anything I do. I can't tell you why people are taking me seriously, but I guess it may relate to there being a lot more sources than my 2 posts on SAU to garner this information? In any case I guess if a couple of typos is enough for you to discard the actual point that I was clearly trying to make, so be it, but I wont lose any sleep over it.

OK this is seriously amazing and I really want to follow your path here (also take my cars to Trent so woot there ).

ya I like

Is it just me that feels that that image is not 1:1 scale. I think it's squashed horizontally which certainly doesn't do it any favors, especially considering it's meant to be 'wide body'.

cruising up with mr Grant. Not fussed but Wallan BP is good anyways

gts-4 4-door + RB26 is a winning idea in my books.

PS it isn't L's you need to display from memory, it's driver under instruction sign or something along those lines.

A quick google search reveals: Americans consume 378 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to nine million barrels of gasoline(American Energy Independence). A barrel is 158.987 litres So 158.987 x 9000000 = 1,430,883,000 litres of gasoline per year (so not including diesel etc) 1 litre releases 2.4 kilograms of CO2. So in the US alone from gasoline alone in 1 year 596,201.250 tonnes of CO2 are released. So the US contributes from passenger cars alone as much CO2 as 1/200th of all the volcanoes in the world. So if this was all the CO2 that needed to be accounted for we'd be pretty sweet except it is just the US and just passenger cars. The numbers are all readily accessible for working out cars world wide but lets face it, cars are just one fraction of the sources of anthropogenic CO2. Australia alone released 1.35% of global CO2 emissions or 480,749,500 tonnes of CO2. Yup Australia alone contributes almost 4x the annual load from all the volcanoes in the world and we don't even have any volcanos. So just like how citizens were asked to take shorter showers and not wash their cars at home, even though coal power accounts 37 percent of our total emissions, you can bet your bottom dollar we'll be asked to take shorter trips while coal will continue to enjoy heavy subsidy . Do I think that is fair? No. But remember next time the debate comes up about pricing carbon from coal power stations, that it is a decision between more expensive power bills and more expensive cars . Sadly the world actually consumes around 82.78 million billion barrels a day, deforestation, etc etc, which accounts for approx 32,253,432,200 tonnes to be released this year or 248.1 x all the volcanoes in the world. An interesting point that ties in with my earlier response. This volcano actually resulted in a net reduction in global mean temperature. The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud -- about 22 million tons -- combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years. It isn't so much about how much of what goes in, but how it affects the positive and negative feedback loops. Sadly SO2 is a great way to produce acid rain so it isn't without its problems either. Could.. but currently doesn't, not even remotely, because cars aren't the only source of CO2 as discussed two points above. Is your war against emissions from cars only? If so, I recommend you invest your time into trying to get as many industrial processes included in a price on carbon as you possibly can. Sigh, such an old point that has been thrown around almost as much as 'evidence' of the death of Jesus and the Noah's ark. Can't be bothered finding the evidence, just do a google search dude, Just no. An ice age is just, if not more, scary than 2 degree higher average temps. Infact a lot of models predict increases in temperature will result in sudden drops in mean temperature, such as the thermohaline circulation stopping. You should be extremely worried about that happening, up there with a comet hitting us or the poles reversing, oh crap what have I done . Yup shit happens, a lot of it unavoidable. The question is can we avoid some of these potential disasters? If so how? That is the question you should be putting your resources if you want to keep tootling around in fancy cars . So after all that, as I said, there is no current evidence to suggest cars are being targeted. Relax dude seriously. Change is scary I know but no need to go running about like a chicken with its head cut off just yet. Link me your source on this, i'm keen to see if they used the terminology 'first term of carbon taxing', because lets face it Kerry, that isn't carbon dioxide taxing.

I am not the most qualified person to debate this, B.EnvSci (Hons) Monash Uni (Climatology), but since I have been asked to qualify my opinion.. If global warming (subset of climate change) is occurring, it is driven by CO2 (and other long wave re-adsorbing gases like H2O) levels in the atmosphere, cars emit CO2 (and H2O) by combining Oxygen (O) with Carbon ©and Hydrogen (H). Shutting your eyes doesn't progress the debate. Not sure where this information comes from, from the little information the government has released on a 'price on carbon' there hasn't been anything detailed about targeting performance cars :S. I hope this isn't true. Misrepresentation, CO2 exists in the atmosphere in a cycle, like water. Some processes put carbon in the sky (like evaporation puts water in the sky) some processes put it back into the ground (like how it rains). Cause and effect in this case is irrelevant, you are looking for positive feedback and negative feedback, and what drives them. This perspective is far more complicated than... global warming makes the atmosphere CO2 rich. I can't be arsed going into specific examples of this but there are many, for example the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, or the clearing of the amazon, or coal power. All of these topics are hotly ongoing debates with the majority of work that I have read leaning towards atmospheric carbon being a key driver of climate change. As above, this is missing the point entirely. There are many things which add and remove CO2 from the atmosphere (and into other spheres such as the biosphere), the argument is actually over what impact it has. CO2 greening the planet for example is not clear cut because increased growth in plants can lead to increased rates of bushfire which then increase atmospheric carbon. Similarly the last volcano was actually better than carbon neutral because it grounded so many aeroplanes (they'll have to update all the text books now to remove Volcano's from natural sources of atmospheric carbon ). Climate change has only two outcomes, warming and cooling. Both of them suck big time for humans, infact the weather atm is fantastic for us. There have been several periods of bad climate that science has clearly identified including some nasty glacial periods where areas like England were inhabitable. Such ice ages aren't particularly scary for us because of the time frame in which they occur 100000 years. Sadly then this historical information is largely useless because the risk we are currently facing is from a _potentially_ accelerated event due _arguably_ to anthropogenic (human) sources. The question then isn't whether or not climate change is occurring but whether what we are currently doing is having an impact upon it, and if so, how much. Sadly without completing our global burn all the terrestrial carbon we can find science experiment it is very difficult to predict. Heck it's hard to predict the weather next week right? But if for example we were to push the climate too fast and for example stop the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic ocean.. we're pretty F--ked mate. You certainly wont be worrying about whether petrol is 5 cents dearer a litre. My understanding is that what is proposed is not a new _tax_ but a price on carbon. Similar to the water rights system used in the Murray. The government is installing a trading system for carbon emissions (which it doesn't stand to profit from). It is not new, infact Europe has had a similar system since 2004.. and the world hasn't seemed to have stopped turning over there. Yeah and, I thought it was pretty obvious that the price on carbon relates to emissions and hence atmospheric carbon which is 95% carbon dioxide in real terms. Really any pollution which can act as a greenhouse gas should be counted.. carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, etc.. however generally these systems work on a getting the basic framework going first. So to add something to this debate that is tangible, consider the nay saying about old cars being given the chop. In a world in which atmospheric carbon is counted for.. new cars which require a variety of very expensive materials and a lot of crude oil to make (smelting, plastics, paint, transport.. ) will have to factor in the cost associated with dumping these gases into the environment throughout the entire manufacturing process. Old cars which have already been built only have to account for emissions made, so in a similar way to how diesel only pays itself off after 10 years or so.. perhaps new cars will be the same? To me that's a good thing.

1x running R32 gts-t (4-door) 1x stationary R32 gts-t (4-door) 1x running R32 gts-4 (4-door)

Don't even know where to begin to start on that except to say.. ur wrong.

HOLY SHIIIIT! I'm totally shotgunning passenger .

Can't wait .

TBH I didn't even look at the photo yeah screw that for 40 bucks.

dunno what job you've got.. 20 dollars of labour isn't ?!?!?!?!?! in my books

There aren't any 'real' 4-door gtr R32s sadly only the autech standard bodied gts-4 with an RB26de in it.

<- Ya it's a full (minus rear guards) conversion. midnight purple 4-door 33 autech gt-r Grant?

but 33 4-door really has grown on me so much maybe I need one of those now too :S.

gts-4 4-door conversion

It is my opinion that any skyline is made better by virtue of having 4-doors with the singular exception of ADM R31s .

Finally got to say hi to ya, krzysiu. Sorry I didn't cruise long work tomorrow . Seen your car a few times around here but usually in the daily.