Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

sounds like that 50mm is not only suspension lift, but total lift including tyres and bodylifts as well. ie it says 50mm lift to trim height, which is the edge of the gaurd/flare. That would suck for 4WDs. Any links to actual info about the proposed change?

I haven't actually read the proposed legislation - just the comments on the link from the first post. I hope that those so vehemently against this have read the legislation, so they understand what they're protesting against.

I agree with your point about the 4WD's, hence my earlier comment. Not that I'm all for jacked up mud racers on our roads, but on a 4WD it doesn't take any extreme mods to blow that 50mm out of the water. Like always, a blanket rule across all vehicle classes is not the answer.

Beseides, there's already legislation in place to limit excessive lowering of cars. Not too many standard road cars would handle more than a 50mm drop and still be able to maintain the required 100mm ground clearance.

Why does a road car need to be raised / lowered more than 5cm anyway?

...

Maybe hardcore offroaders need the extra lift, and I'm not going to argue against that.

Well there you go.

My point is, there's reasons why you'd want to raise/lower your car more than 5cm, as you said yourself Extreme 4wd'ers. While skylines might not need to be lowered 5cm for track work, i'm sure there's some cars out there that could be safely lowered, with a benifit, more if they were to be used on a track aswell. no need to force people to buy a trailer if they don't want or need to.

Now, if someones driving around in a dangerously lowered car with distasteful rims, wouldn't the current laws mean that they'd be defected anyway?

Not everyone can afford a track car and a daily. Or at least people should be able to drive to the track. Just because you see no need for a car to be raise or lowered does not mean it should be illegal to do so...

There are already laws in place for lowering (100mm lowest) and raising car ( not sure exactly how high is highest)

If they really want to improve safety they should be stricter on tyre manufacturers and ban the Chinese plastic fantastic tires. Now they are dangerous..

Signed.

Even though this lowering ban won't affect me much I'm sick & tired of the government's fantasy fetish to "ban" everything they don't like.

Now whats this BS about increasing registration cost of older cars so we are all forced to drive white goods grandpa spec Camrys?

Bravo for the selective quoting. Looks like you'd make a good journo.

Well lets be honest, your line of thinking is flawed.

The default should not be unlimited power to government then justify why a law should not be implemented.

What is it about vehicles raised or lowered more than 5cm that warrants prohibition?

Give them an inch and theyll take a mile, they wont stay at 5cm. The only length I want to give them is some hangrope.

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

    • Very decent bit of kit. Definitely black it out I reckon.  
    • Because people who want that are buying euros. The people with the money to buy the aftermarket heads and blocks aren’t interested in efficiency or making -7 power, they’re making well over 1,000hp and pretty much only drive them at full throttle  best way to way make money is know your customer base and what they want and don’t spend money making things they don’t want. 
    • It's not, but it does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity regardless. For example, what if the cylinder head was redesigned to fit a GDI fuel system? It's worth like two full points of compression ratio when looking at modern GDI turbo vs PFI turbo. I'm pretty reliably surprised at how much less turbo it takes to make similar power out of a modern engine vs something like an RB26. Something with roughly the same dimensions as a -7 on an S55 is making absolutely silly power numbers compared to an RB26. I know there's a ton of power loss from things like high tension rings, high viscosity oil, clutch fan, AWD standby loss, etc but it's something like 700 whp in an F80 M3 vs 400 whp in an R33 GTR. The stock TF035HL4W turbos in an F80 M3 are really rather dinky little things and that's enough to get 400 whp at 18 psi. This just seems unwise no? I thought the general approach is if you aren't knock limited the MFB50 should be held constant through the RPM range. So more timing with RPM, but less timing with more cylinder filling. A VE-based table should accordingly inverse the VE curve of the engine.
    • I've seen tunes from big name workshops with cars making in excess of 700kW and one thing that stood out to me, is that noone is bothering with torque management. Everyone is throwing in as much timing as the motor can take for a pull. Sure that yields pretty numbers on a dyno, but it's not keeping these motors together for more than a few squirts down the straight without blowing coolant or head gaskets. If tuners, paid a bit more attention and took timing out in the mid range, managed boost a bit better, you'll probably see less motors grenading. Not to name names, or anything like that, but I've seen a tune, from a pretty wild GT-R from a big name tuner and I was but perplexed on the amount of timing jammed into it. You would have expected a quite a bit less timing at peak torque versus near the limiter, but there was literally 3 degrees of difference. Sure you want to make as much as possible throughout the RPM range, but why? At the expense of blowing motors? Anyhow I think we've gone off topic enough once again lol.
    • Because that’s not what any of them are building these heads or blocks for. It’s to hold over over 1000hp at the wheels without breaking and none of that stuff is required to make power 
×
×
  • Create New...