Pics of the new Supersucker "track" lower airbox
03-07-2003, 12:57 AM
#41
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Pics of the new Supersucker "track" lower airbox </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
03-07-2003, 12:58 AM
#42
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Pics of the new Supersucker "track" lower airbox </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
03-07-2003, 12:58 AM
#43
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Pics of the new Supersucker "track" lower airbox </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
03-07-2003, 12:59 AM
#44
TECH Resident
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Pics of the new Supersucker "track" lower airbox </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ss1le02:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 1CAMWNDR:
<strong> Instead of making it so low; why not make it 2 feet wider? That would not affect driverability and would gulp in as much if not more air, right?
Just an idea. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you think it's expensive now, to do this would make it much more expensive. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Uh, I didn't say anything about the cost, I was trying to solve the drivability issue so we could install it and leave it on the car at all times...... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Supersucker. There's the regular version that works on the street. It is the same width as the track version but 3 inches higher off the ground. This works fine for everyday driving. Last week we came out with the track version of the lower box. It is the same width but much lower than the regular version. This is ONLY for track use. I suppose we could make it wider with the same height above the ground but this would make it much more expensive. The reason it would be more expensive is that you would now have to make angles and bends to it. This would greatly increase the cost.
