Cowboy1600

Hey dude, Mind sending me some info of said shop? I wanna get mine checked out for "straightness" and maybe pulled straight.

That's what I originally thought. I've moved away from that a little as the shudder is not consistent. I haven't ruled it out however.

Sweet, thanks dude. Thommo isn't too far out of the way

There is so much wrong with what you said. Firstly the idea that driving a B-double on a car license is the same as driving a car on restrictions is WRONG. You are not licensed to drive a B-double on a car license. You are, however licensed to drive a car. In some cases that license may come with certain restrictions, but you are still licensed to drive a car. That is very different. And as I said, if the insurer doesn't explicitly state that you are not insured under an exact circumstance, ie. "You will not be insured if: you drive a car more powerful that your license allows You are not wear your prescribed glasses as per license conditions" then you are covered. As I said, they cannot put in vague restrictions hoping to net as many claims as possible. They are obligated, by law, to specifically set out when you will and won't be covered. And again, an insurer cannot insure a vehicle on behalf of a person, knowing full well that that person is not allowed to drive that vehicle. If they do, and they do not inform the person to the best of their ability that they are driving a vehicle off limits to them, then you can be almost guaranteed that in the event of a claim, they will be forced to honor the policy. Insurers MUST disclaim EVERYTHING. Let's look at you 3rd party "cover" concept. Taking a premium for 3PFT or Comprehensive for the fire and theft part of a the insurance only. They are still absolutely obligated to tell their client that they will not be insured if they actually drive the vehicle, ie. the client is ONLY insured for fire and theft. If they fail to adequately do so then they will have to honor the claim in the event that the person crashes while actually driving. And again, they must explicitly state "You will not be insured while driving this vehicle as you are currently on a restricted probationary license and you car falls under the restricted category for the following reasons: too powerful...blah blah blah." If they don't, then they will have to pay. So they have three options. 1) Do not insure your vehicle. 2) Insure your vehicle only after making it absolutely clear that the nominated driver will not be insured when driving the car for reasons x, y and z (must be explicit - cannot be some vague "catch everyone" clause) 3) Insure your vehicle with making it absolutely clear that the driver will not be insured when driving the car for reasons x, y and z and then be forced to pay out a claim in future. So, again, your insistence that a p plater will not be insured in the event of crashing a car on the "too powerful" list is incorrect. Most insurers do not put a specific clause in their contracts in relation to this and do not take adequate steps to inform the policy holder that they will not be insured in the event they crash the car while still having that specific license restriction.

Hmmm.... Maybe I'll try and track down a suspension joint. Anyone care to recommend someone in the North East or Eastern Suburbs (ie. Greensborough area or Burwod area)?

Actually if you place the HTC and IP4 side by side the HTC still comes out on top. The Android Software is brilliant and the apps store is huge, and growing faster than the IP apps store.

Any clues? I had 4 new tires fitted (and balanced) along with a 4 wheel alignment but the problems haven't gone away. Occasionally under brakes I will get a very bad steering shake. I thought this may have been due to warped discs but seeing as it happens erratically I'm thinking worn ball joints/tie rods/bushes. Does this sound right? And prior to the tires/alignment my car was pulling right. My steering wheel was about 10 degrees off center when driving in a straight line. Post tires and alignment I still have this problem. I would've thought it was a cock-up by the guy who did the alignment but I can't help but think it's either a chassis alignment issue (I think my car has been pranged at some stage) or the front tie rods, ball joints and bushes are cactus. If anyone is able to give me some direction that would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure where to start. BTW, car is S1 R33 GTST with 17x7 front 7x8 rear and 235/45s all round. Sits around 2 inches lower than stock.

Do yourself a favor and get a HTC Desire instead. Shits all over the iPhone.

My bad, I meant HC.

Stuffed cat Real cat The differences are quite obvious. Couldn't help myself

Research the industry. Make sure it's something you really want to do. I've known a few towies and it certainly takes specific types. It's a pretty shitful job. If you do decide it's for you, then the license required will depend on the tow truck you want. If you are doing heavy towing then I think you will need an MC license. You can drive the trucks on a HR license but once you have something on tow you need an MC. If you just wanna do cars with a tray truck, you will only require an MR license. Gimps idea is a very good one. Try and land a job with a tow company and see how you go.

I don't think the question was "will the cars make it" or "are they good drag cars". The question was, ad-libbing, "Which car would be faster?" How do you know the cars aren't set up to withstand the quarter mile?

No, no. I've been doing this internet thing for about 15 years and am yet to understand why people involve themselves in a discussion to which they have no interest. Seriously, if you think the discussion is pointless then remove yourself from it. It's not hard. You wouldn't walk up to someone in real life and stand there talking over them with "I don't care" "You're conversation is pointless" "You're boring" while they try and speak. So why do it here? If you find it pointless then f**k off. It's quite simple. Those in a discussion that you find pointless clearly don't share your feelings and quite frankly don't give a f**k.

From the National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia. Utmost Good Faith Sections 12,13 and 14 The duty of good faith is central to and regulates all aspects of the contract of insurance, from inception through to the terms of the contract, to each party’s responsibilities in the event of a claim under the contract of insurance. Information that is of vital importance is only known to one party to the contract. To make the dealing as fair as possible, the principle of utmost good faith was developed whereby the party possessing the knowledge owes a duty to disclose the material and relevant facts to the other party of the contract so that the other party can make an accurate assessment of what they are undertaking ie. if an insurance company knowingly takes your money without letting you know that you will not be covered in an accident due to you driving a hogh powered car, they will likely have broken the good faith clause. A brief history At common law a contract of insurance is based on the principle that the insurer and insured act with the utmost good faith towards each other. The principle is known as “uberrima fides”.The principle was settled by the judgement of son of rajab Mansfield in Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905; 97 ER1162.son of rajab Mansfield said: “Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other party into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.” So on and so forth. If an insurance company takes your cash without telling you the car you are insuring is illegal for you to drive, they have not acted in good faith and will likely have to honour any claims you make as per your contract with them.

You are 100% incorrect. If you look at your PDS it will explicitly state rules affecting your insurance and drink driving/drug use. There will likely be no such clause for any other traffic infringement. And they cannot put in a clause that covers everything without specifically stating what will and what will not void your insurance. It is illegal. And if they take you money, knowing full well that your insurance will be void (if they do have a clause specifically regarding high powered vehicles) then they will still likely have to warrant your insurance as they took your money in "good faith".

I'm in exactly the same boat. ECU arrived and ready to go. There are a number of guys on here that I have heard great things about in general, so would love some specifics. Also, tuners, if you want to PM me what you charge for a Nistune fit/tune and also exactly what your package includes that would be great . I've already been in touch with a couple of you. I'll be deciding where to go within the next 5 days.

That has nothing to do with it. If it's so pointless, why are you here? Seriously, GTFO if it's such an insult to your sensibilities.

No you're not and no they don't. Driving a car that you are not meant to does not automatically disqualify you from making a claim against insurance. Read any insurers PDS and you will not find anything to suggest such under the "We will not pay your claim" section. There will be some specifics, such as DUI and Drug driving, but if there is no specific about driving a vehicle above the power limit or in the off limits list, then they are still required to pay out. They cannot protect themselves carte blanche with a statement about you doing the right thing. Also if an insurance takes money off you for a premium, in good faith, on a vehicle that they know you aren't meant to be driving, they will be placing themselves in a situation where it would be practically impossible for them to get out of paying a claim on this basis. Also, isn't it 150kW per ton? I know it used to be this but it's been so long since I had to care that it could have changed by now. EDIT: Nvm. Just found the VicRoads bit and it is 125kW/ton. R33GTST is 1390kgs and 184kW from the factory which = 132kW/ton.

Yeah. the longer it goes, the more my money would shift to the GTT, but over 400m I doubt the GTT would have the power to overcome the GTRs better launch. It'd be an interesting race, and bench racing this sort of stuff is fun. As for RWD being more "developed" for racing, I don't think that counts in this situation. From what I can gather these cars aren't absolute straight line weapons running 2' wide slicks and build on a ladder chassis with a 4 link rear and such. They are stinking hot street cars.

I'd say so. Then you get similar weight, more HP (in the 34) and similar traction capability, so they would be even with the 34 inching ahead the further you go.

I'm gunna bet he means first across the line. After all, that's all that matters.

Possibly! Possibly have traction issues?! With 700hp and RWD I'd be surprised if he's not still wheel spinning across the finish line. The 4WD will win simply for the fact it can get the power to the ground. 4WD will be enough to overcome the HP and weight disadvantage. As for the posts stating "too many variables", how about a bit of conjecture? Of course it's impossible to know definitively who would win until the race is done, but lets just put on our "what if" hats for a second and debate who would and who wouldn't.

Sold.

That looks amazing. Can you get your mate to post a full list of products he used and perhaps a bit of a run-down on process?

Going up on ebay soon.