Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

we have a 73 convertible mustang. nice to have the wind in my long shiny silky hair. well not really. when discussing whether or not to get a 69 fastback restored for us, my dad complained about liking the open topped one with wind and noise etc. :rofl:

convertibles are nice to be in, but i don't really like the look of them over coupes/fastbacks (although, it depends on the car)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-907980
Share on other sites

Convertibles look nice but there are far too many that don't have the go to match, ie they're just pose-mobiles. MX5 is a great car, but the asthmatic four banger doesn't do the chassis justice - my old 202 Commodore could beat them in a straight line. Work it hard, bolt on a turbo, or do an engine swap, and they're a formidable opponent at the track. Having not driven one, I'd guess an Elise would be similar - with a fantastic chassis like that, why oh why did they put such an underpowered engine in? Another 100 or so hp would make the car so much more enjoyable. Yes they're still quick point to point but for crying out loud, give it some power!

I've driven a few cars that have been really good in the corners and under brakes but seriously lacking under the bonnet, and although still plenty of fun, they end up just being frustrating.

I chopped a poser in an F355 convertible big time on my bike, had his missus in the car giving him a hard time too :rofl:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-907998
Share on other sites

some people are led to thinking that convertibles are lighter and therefore a bit quicker, when in actual reality, they are a tiny bit heavier because the roof which holds the whole car structure is gone, and heavy steel struts have to be inserted into the sides to strengthen the chassis. also some roofs have electric motors which adds to the weight. but hey if u like the wank factor, go 4 it

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908006
Share on other sites

some people are led to thinking that convertibles are lighter and therefore a bit quicker, when in actual reality, they are a tiny bit heavier because the roof which holds the whole car structure is gone, and heavy steel struts have to be inserted into the sides to strengthen the chassis. also some roofs have electric motors which adds to the weight. but hey if u like the wank factor, go 4 it

bahahaha... yes indeed.

electric roof + reinforcement + air conditioning sitting in there doing nothing except being heavy = 73 mustang

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908041
Share on other sites

there's a ghey SAU NSW running around in a ghey 350zx convertible... what was his name... like he din have "i'm goin thru a midlife crisis" written all over him :rofl:

Heyyyy that him in the pic!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908058
Share on other sites

Dunno why but i think the S13 convertible with either an S15 front bar or a 180SX front bar looks HOT. There was on at prestige a while ago with the 180 nose... sexy.
Wait till you drive one of those cvnts... lol my mate has one (green S14 convertible, 180sx front, number plate "ONEVIA" and yeah its a bit sluggish to maneuvre...
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/44387-convertibles/#findComment-908190
Share on other sites

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

    • Don't they cool down technically when you're sitting at a set of lights? 
    • The circuit if not a resistor divider is using an opamp to deliver a specific current normally. By maintaining the current as resistance changes, the voltage does too. Add to that, thermistors are normally non linear too,which can make creating a function impossible. Most uses of a thermistor people will utilise a lookup table to get the corresponding temperature.
    • On a scale of 1 to 10, how shit are the RE003's? (10 being ultra mega shit) Was hoping they'd be alright for a non-daily driven R32 that might get driven to Charnwood Macca's in the dry once a month, and maybe the odd hoon up and down the hills that pass for mountains in sunny Canberra.  Bob Jane currently running a "Buy 4 Get 1 Free" deal on RE003s and my brain can't comprehend anything else being value for money
    • Yeah, they look good. I should try to fit them on mine. But being a GTSt, the guard shape probably doesn't suit properly.
    • Nah, it's not a simple voltage divider. I'm not enough of an electronics guru to know how they make these circuits work. If I had a better idea of how the ECU's temperature measuring is done, I could then actually do as you want, which is turn that resistance chart into a voltage chart. But my approach has not worked. What I did was interpolate the sensor ohms values for the temperatures you listed, as you did not have any of them on a temperature ending in zero or 5. These are: °C ECU V sensor ohms (interpolated) 58 2.68 11.85 57 2.7 11.89 56 2.74 11.93 54 2.8 12.01 49 3.06 12.208 47 3.18 12.284 43 3.37 12.42 I then assumed 5V supply to the resister and calculated the voltage drop across the sensor for each of those, which is just 5 - the above voltages, and then calculated the current that must be flowing through the sensor. So you get:             Values in sensor °C ECU V sensor ohms (interpolated) Supply volts Volt drop Current 58 2.68 11.85     5 2.32 0.195781 57 2.7 11.89     5 2.3 0.19344 56 2.74 11.93     5 2.26 0.189438 54 2.8 12.01     5 2.2 0.183181 49 3.06 12.208     5 1.94 0.158912 47 3.18 12.284     5 1.82 0.14816 43 3.37 12.42     5 1.63 0.13124 And then use that current and the ECU's sensed voltage (which must be the voltage drop across the in ECU resister is there is one) to calculate the resistance of that in ECU resistor. You get:             Values in sensor   Other resistor °C ECU V sensor ohms (interpolated) Supply volts Volt drop Current   Volt Drop Resistance 58 2.68 11.85     5 2.32 0.195781   2.68 13.68879 57 2.7 11.89     5 2.3 0.19344   2.7 13.95783 56 2.74 11.93     5 2.26 0.189438   2.74 14.46381 54 2.8 12.01     5 2.2 0.183181   2.8 15.28545 49 3.06 12.208     5 1.94 0.158912   3.06 19.25592 47 3.18 12.284     5 1.82 0.14816   3.18 21.46325 43 3.37 12.42     5 1.63 0.13124   3.37 25.67816 And that's where it falls apart, because the resulting resistance would need to be the same for all of those temperatures, and it is not. So clearly the physical model is not correct. Anyway, you or someone else can use that information to go forward if someone has a better physical model. I can also show you how to interpolate for temperatures between those in the resistance chart. It's not fun because you've got to either do it like I did it for every 5°C range separately, or check to see if the slope remains constant over a wide range, then you can just work up a single formula. I'm just showing how to do it for a single 5° span. For the 58°C temperature, resistance = 11.77+2*(11.97-11.77)/5 The calc is a little arse backwards because the resistance is NTC (negative temperature coefficient), so the slope is negative, but I'm lazy, so I just treated 58 as if it was 2 degrees away from 60, not 3 degrees away from 55, and so on.
×
×
  • Create New...