R34 2 Stage Boost.

[NA_Goodness]

Hey, I paid $1.40 or so for my first tank of petrol, so for me, $1.13 or what ever premium was last time I filled up is cheap!

[Tezzah]

Hey, I paid $1.40 or so for my first tank of petrol, so for me, $1.13 or what ever premium was last time I filled up is cheap!

That is the exact problem.

[SKYRYAN]

I did this to my 33 and I could feel a slight difference

If you're worried about using fuel, just don't hit boost. Simple.

[RICCA]

Im not fussed Petrol u need it lol Otherwise walk lol

Anyways lets not HI jack the Thread anymore! back on Topic

Im going to give this a go

Edited December 2, 2008 by RICCA

[R34P3R]

lol do it and tell me how it goes... im too much of a pansy to try it first

[R34P3R]

done.. no electrical tape so i used so vacuum pipe to put it over it and held it in place with cable ties.. lol for now

can fell and see the revs climb faster. before around 4000rpm the boosts stops alittle but now the revs climb up constantly.

[viet_boi]

with this, is it best to get a fmic or dont need?

[R34P3R]

do it without it john!!! i know you want to

[viet_boi]

haha probaly do it when my fmic arrives..should be soon..then give it a hurt

[Tezzah]

It doesnt matter with or without.

But a FMIC is a good upgrade anyway

[NISZILA]

Without a front mount will be fine. Helped a friend do this to his R33 and he still hasn't got his front mount on. Works fine

[Marco-R34GTT]

It should never have gone this high in the first place.

now consumers will 'settle' for 99 cents a litre thinking it is 'normal'. next time, prices will hit 2dollars a litre. then they will come down to 1.20 and people will be like "OMG SO CHEAP"....

I'm of the thought that fuel in Australia and America has always been far too cheap. Having energy costs that are too low, and at a cost that does not realistically represent their true economic, nonrenewable and finite nature, is not only a bad piece of government policy, it also discourages the automotive industry from producing vehicles with a sensible and pragmatic approach to energy efficiency. Having fuel at 70 - 80 cents will not provide the necessary incentive for companies to invest in clean, renewable energy, and not even that, it simply does not encourage the individual to become efficient in their own individual consumption of energy.

I'm not a hippy, in fact, I utterly despise environmentalists of most forms. However, I will recognise two things, our planet is teetering on a state of near catastrophic ecological disaster, and that our current and still main source of cheap, base energy is a finite resource which is dwindling by the day, at a rate of around 120 millions barrels of oil a day roughly (Just to note, up until recently, it was the Americans alone consuming around 36,000,000 barrels of oil daily).

I don't agree with fuel having been between roughly $1.50 to $1.80. Having energy prices that increase dramatically in a short'ish duration, is no good in as it is really a one way ticket to upward inflationary pressure, not only that, a quick'ish rise in energy costs sends a relatively violent ripple effect throughout any modern economy. I don't have any figures on me at the moment, but I'd say fuel would've been at $1.00 in... Say... 2004??? Fast forward 4 years, 2008, fuel was at a price at roughly $1.60... That is a 60% increase in fuel prices over the course of 4 years, so that is around abouts a mean increase of 20% per annum. Do people usually receive a 20$ increase in pay over the course of a year? With fuel saying "It has only gone up 20 cents" is not really the point, the point is that fuel would've gone up 20% every year over four years. Once you calculate your average fuel consumption over a week or even a month. The dollars start to add up, in which case, you're discretionary spending power (Money you use to buy 'luxury goods') takes a hit, when this affects a few people here and there it doesn't make much of a difference, but consider that possibility all over the world, or even just Australia, and the implications of sharp rises in energy are easily understood.

Still, I don't agree with fuel prices being too low either, if you've watched the news much over the last month or so, you would've seen the dire financial trouble General Motors, Ford America and Chrysler are all in.. Americans have been paying peanuts for fuel since.... Well... Forever really. In true adherence to the apparently tried and true "Laissez-faire"(**^^**) capitalism, the Americans have never taxed fuel to any real degree, at most, they've occasionally imposed excises in conditions of temporary shortage (ie: WWII), however, that fact isn't really all that meaningful to the argument. What is meaningful is that for the majority of its history, the American people have been literally smothered in dirt cheap energy and THAT is why car manufacturers in the USofA have never built an engine (or cars for that matter) with decent technology or engineering. A few months ago, we had, what looked like, a perilous and dramatic increase in fuel prices that literally, week after week, were breaking all kinds of trading records. We'd never seen crude oil at $147 off dollars a barrel, it was totally unprecedented, this is what caused a lot of people, both within America and aboard, to finally shun the big American lump of a car. The mustangs, the chargers, the cameros, the hemis and the corvettes of old (and some even recent) where indeed something to behold, in a design and power sense, the yanks could on occasion 'hit the nail square on the head', however, that car making philosophy was never going to survive long into the 21st century, a fact which is now entirely evident. Now that even the price of fuel has come off in an equally dramatic manner, the American lump is on borrowed time, people at the moment don't really have the money to buy a new car at this point, not with houses on the line, jobs, mortgages and personal loans to cover. Even so, considering someone HAD the job security and the capital to purchase a new car, the horror of $1.40 per litre is still far profound to give even minor relief to the car industry, I imagine potential buyers are thinking "Well, f*ck this, I'm off the buy a Golf Diesel".

So not only where people not putting in orders for American vehicles, on the basis that fuel was rapidly becoming more and more expensive, but moreso, with the current economic crisis we are facing, people simply don't have the financial muscle, security and confidence to stump up the necessary funds, and for those that do, they won't buy these vehicles for two reasons. As I mentioned before, the horror of the expensive fuel is far too fresh, people don't want to be driving big, inefficient and thirsty vehicles when fuel shoots back up the June/July 08 levels, and secondly, I think attitudes are slowly changing, we all know now that even IF WE ARE YET to reach world peak oil production (google 'peak oil' theory), we all know it is still finite, we know it simply will not last forever, a scarce product will always increase with price as supply grows and demand shrinks. Also, and more importantly, I think most consumers grasp the idea of global warming, it is too hard NOT to notice. I think people will still appreciate the old 68' GT500 Mustangs, or the 72' Stingray Corvettes, but I don't think consumers are taking kindly to such inefficient vehicles being produced in 2008, consumers (even Americans) have become too aware and too cautious to consider these modern 'American lumps' purchasable...

Was it the philosophy of the American automotive industry?

Was is the American government? Their fiscal policy and economic ideology?

Was it the attitudes of the American people?

Was it the perception that the Americans are a 'throw away' society?

I don't know the answer, but I think each of those questions holds a little bit of truth.

Now.. I'm off to bed... ZZZzzzz

**^^** - [NERD - hold breath](For those of you who don't know of this term. Firstly "Laissez-faire" is French (obviously ), and it is an economic term that defines a western style capitalism that operates on the principle that the least amount of government interference, ie; income taxation, stamp duties, import tariffs ect ect, is best for the economy. In which case theoretically the weak should fall and the mighty should rise, it allows opportunity and advancement for the most economically/financially adventurous, prudent and entrepreneurial. The invisible hand (google supply/demand) will always, (in a free market, capitalist economy) be most able to adequately distribute finance, capital and resources where it is most needed, and where it will be most efficiently utilised).[/NERD - breathe again]

{edit} - I just realised how long this post was... Sorry... lol..

Edited December 2, 2008 by Marco-R34GTT

[viet_boi]

^^^ your on crack aint yah..

[R34P3R]

i fell asleep half way through it

Edited December 2, 2008 by R34P3R

[SCR34M]

As i have a little in me i think its fair to say.... typical wogs, always makin the biggest statement...lol

I saw that and kept scrollin... way too early to be readin that....lol

[Tezzah]

Marco, i dont know why you went to the effort to type all that up, because you do understand that the people that need to read it, will never get to. But good on you anyway.

I am personally all for alternative sources of energy, i am a big big big big electric car fan.

Ive watched the documentary "Who killed the electric car" 3 times and i have it recorded (on my foxtel iQ) for when i want to show other people, if you haven't seen it, u highly suggest you do.

we all know it is still finite, we know it simply will not last forever, a scarce product will always increase with price as supply grows and demand shrinks

How can price increase when there is reduced demand, and increased supply? that goes against the basic laws of economy... I'm confused as to what your trying to say....?

This argument is irrelevant, if we had electric cars, petrol should be at 20cents a litre. and then governments SHOULD employ very strict pollution controls on combustion based vehicles.

I don't wanna argue with you, because i think we are fighting the same fight. Just go watch the documentary.

[RICCA]

As i have a little in me i think its fair to say.... typical wogs, always makin the biggest statement...lol

I saw that and kept scrollin... way too early to be readin that....lol

Wats wrong with us wogs Now!!!

[Marco-R34GTT]

Marco, i dont know why you went to the effort to type all that up, because you do understand that the people that need to read it, will never get to. But good on you anyway.

I am personally all for alternative sources of energy, i am a big big big big electric car fan.

Ive watched the documentary "Who killed the electric car" 3 times and i have it recorded (on my foxtel iQ) for when i want to show other people, if you haven't seen it, u highly suggest you do.

How can price increase when there is reduced demand, and increased supply? that goes against the basic laws of economy... I'm confused as to what your trying to say....?

This argument is irrelevant, if we had electric cars, petrol should be at 20cents a litre. and then governments SHOULD employ very strict pollution controls on combustion based vehicles.

I don't wanna argue with you, because i think we are fighting the same fight. Just go watch the documentary.

I obviously meant as supply shrinks and demands grows.. Sorry about that, it was rather late at night when I wrote that. Also, I wouldn't consider the argument totally irrelevant, a VERY MAJOR component of the current economic crisis has in fact been energy policy (Mainly the USA). Sure the housing market/bad loans was the basis for the crash to occur, the spike and then collapse of the price of energy had a lot to do not only with the rapidity of the worsening economic conditions, but also the severity and depth of the recessions that will be experienced world wide. Little government intervention on energy is a bad piece of policy, taxation is a must and efficiency is numero uno. The much vaunted 'invisible hand' has given us all one mighty pimp slap to the face! Laissez-faire economics didn't work in the 1920's and it hasn't worked in the 2000's, market liberalism works when the sun is shining, but the collapses are just too severe, too rapid and too economically desvistating...

[SKYRYAN]

Marco obviously got an A+ in high school Economics class.

[Tezzah]

I obviously meant as supply shrinks and demands grows.. Sorry about that, it was rather late at night when I wrote that. Also, I wouldn't consider the argument totally irrelevant, a VERY MAJOR component of the current economic crisis has in fact been energy policy (Mainly the USA). Sure the housing market/bad loans was the basis for the crash to occur, the spike and then collapse of the price of energy had a lot to do not only with the rapidity of the worsening economic conditions, but also the severity and depth of the recessions that will be experienced world wide. Little government intervention on energy is a bad piece of policy, taxation is a must and efficiency is numero uno. The much vaunted 'invisible hand' has given us all one mighty pimp slap to the face! Laissez-faire economics didn't work in the 1920's and it hasn't worked in the 2000's, market liberalism works when the sun is shining, but the collapses are just too severe, too rapid and too economically desvistating...

Have you watched the documentary yet?