Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

the 370z isn't even a good looking car as it stands...then you want to put that front on a car that is 15+ years older. The stock 33 front looks better than that haha. Spend your money on something that you can actually benefit from...Power/handling mods or a house deposit.

the 370z isn't even a good looking car as it stands...then you want to put that front on a car that is 15+ years older. The stock 33 front looks better than that haha. Spend your money on something that you can actually benefit from...Power/handling mods or a house deposit.

are you high?

the 370z is a fantastically beautiful car.

was bored so i photoshoped it to show you what it may / could look like...

personally.. it does not suit.. nor will it be cheap.. :P

r33-70.jpg

TBH i actually don't mind that at all... IF you could pull it off. Would be a pain to do.

No, I'm not high. Each to their own. My neighbour has one. For the $$$ he paid there is a big list of cars I would purchase before one of those. They are nothing special and they are tiny.

Have you ever even driven one?

250KW stock in a car that weighs 1400kg RWD. Amazing fun to drive.

Haven't driven it but have been in it numerous times. As I said above, each to their own. I'm not convinced and probably never will be. Aesthetically they are not for me :no:

Fairenough.

yer im in the process of paying my house of and yer I actually like the way that the 370z front looks on the R33 no spoiler and some fatter skirts I reckin would look sik even wide rear guards.

Dunno what the Quote was about lol but yer even I guess R35 GTR front on there would look nice but u need to continue the fatness around the car lol I lie the look and yer the 370z front would be cheaper to acquire then the GTR 35 if someone can mod that pic with some fatter rears and side skirts and get rid of the whale tail see how it looks then.

ohh hey man yer looks better nice mate nope I havnet asked an engineer or anything yet is there anything I need to know im guessing if it isn't really modifying the chasis or actually structure and all things like lighst and stuff still work im guessing it cant be that much of a problem maybe bonnet and stuff like that I dunno.

But hey all things like intercoolers and boost controllers aftermarket ECu's and neons and all that have a warning saying For off road use only so even with an engineers cert they can still defect you go check it out.

Im guessing a lot of stuff will need to either be welded or fibreglassed up moulds aswell so I cant see things like bonnets and bumpers being structully sound compared to stock standard items.

I havnet measured it up either so I have no idea if it will fit.

couple of questions you have to ask are:

will you be using an r33 gtst or an r33 gtr (ovibous reasons being ones wider but more expensive)
how much will it be to source a 370z front cut/rolling body vs getting fibreglass made panels
what engine do you want to run (please say rb26)
and last have you looked around for a well respected panel shop thats capable of pulling of such a task

but youd be looking at more then what you could build a very quick gtr with to pull this off, and at the end of the day.. doing a conversion like this youd want some sort of modified engine to go into it to walk the walk

but go for it :)

well to be honest I wouldn't use a GTR id keep it RWD do a lil drifting in it and il leave the RB series motor in for now this case a Rb25DET maybe later down the track go to a VG30DETT so the engine is in a better position for chasis balnce but that's just my thoughts might even leave the RB25 in there and rebuild an Rb30 block and put that in with the RB25 head.

I dunno this is all an idea atm I know its gunna cost abit to get stuff done but those the breaks if you want something I love the stupid comments too thanks its all good il add to your posts done guys np.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...