Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey peoples

no doubt this is a stupid question but when installing the fmic, wat is the part of the car called

where i drill the hole through on the drivers side in front of the plenum for the piping to go through.

cheers

Guesty

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203366-fmic-piping-kit-question/
Share on other sites

lol i'm aware of the defect side of it

my mate just got done for it. there telling him he needs an engineers certificate.

i was just asking wat the part of the car is called that people drill through.

the metal wall in the engine bay?

does it have a specific name?

lol sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not talking about doing it.

  GuestyR33 said:
lol i'm aware of the defect side of it

my mate just got done for it. there telling him he needs an engineers certificate.

i was just asking wat the part of the car is called that people drill through.

the metal wall in the engine bay?

does it have a specific name?

lol sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not talking about doing it.

hope ya mate doesnt have a car with an air bag

cause if he does... he'll never get it engineered. No VASS will sign off on it

its called the aapron. the metal part where you drill through for fmic piping. if i were u i wouldnt bother, just get a custom pipe made up for it to return to the standard side of the engine. no cutting needed.

  Krimz said:
whats wrong with cutting it? prety much all fmic installs i have seen has the whole cut, except for the coolers where both pipes go same way, (to the passenger side)

thats coz pretty much all cooler installs in victoria are illegal....

  Krimz said:
whats wrong with cutting it? prety much all fmic installs i have seen has the whole cut, except for the coolers where both pipes go same way, (to the passenger side)

its only illegal to cut that area IF the car has an airbag

if you dont then its perfectly legal.

  • 2 weeks later...

DONT DO IT!!!!!! DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!

ive jsut spent the last 3 months tryin to get my defect cleared for this hole i cut in mine. In the end i had to get a custom fabricator to weld supports around the hole and reo bar etc to make it engineerable.

Either go see a engineer first and discuss wot he/ she will pass and wot will be safe. trust me its not worth it, either get a ARC kit or sumthing similar or see a engineer! a good one!

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...