So it seems. From the pics i've seen, the speaker looks like a 6 1/2 in a oversized adapter/spacer

This was posted in another thread years ago. http://www.the370z.com/members/birdm...tter-stuff.jpg

This seems to be the standard adapter across multiple nissan/infiniti cars.

If you have the Bose 6x9, a 5 1/4 would be an easier installation just by using a 6x9 to 5 1/4 plate adapter.

Where as this type you will need a adapter/spacer of unknown length. Most high powered drivers have a 2.5-3.5 inch mounting depth. The shallow depth drivers usually cost significantly more for the same total output (neodymium magnets, wider basket). They also inherently sacrifice a bit of bass impact because of the shallow cone depth.

I know that fitment can be an issue with the rear magnet on the speaker interfering with the window. I spoke to the audio road shop regarding what speaker size would have the best fitment for the Nissan 370Z and they agreed with people on this forum that a 5 1/4" speaker would have the best possible fitment. I know they are smaller speakers but, I am looking for what fits best overall. They ordered Kicker KS series 5 1/4" speakers with Kicker 1" tweeters,and Kicker crossovers. The magnet on the Kicker KS series speakers are pretty flat and not too big. Cone size will not be a issue. I am just trying to figure out what spacer would be best to go with going with the 5 1/4" Kicker speakers? What speaker adapter plate size and brand should I go with that will fit in the front doors in my 370Z?

Links anyone on where to purchase adapter plates?

Bit expensive, but beats cheap plastic ones..

Custom Sub Enclosure | Affordable Sub Box

I know the link says something else, but it should link you to the zenclosure spacers

You can make your own adapters pretty easily by using the OEM speakers for a template.

This is what I used. Look for coupon code.

Thank you.

I'm not going to point fingers, but there is a LOT of wrong information and/or false facts in this thread.

One thing I will tell you right now, "cone depth" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality nor does it have anything to do with sound quantity.

Now the curvature of the cone and how the cone transitions to the surround, that's a different story, one I won't bother going into here.

Quicksilvers, my advise to you is to do more research before making your decision based off of the information in this thread alone.

Whats the purpose of claiming the information is wrong without presenting any facts to your claim.

The speaker depth dictates the potential angle and curvature of the cone, if you reduce the speaker depth you reduce the potential cone depth. Less speaker depth means you inherently sacrifice the curvature of the cone. Changing the cone convexity can and will change the directional beaming of a speaker certainly in the low mids->high fq range. Lastly changing the cone depth changes the overall displacement of air. changing a number of factors can change the total displacement of air, but the primary contributors is the depth of the speaker and xmax of the voicecoil, and the depth of the cone. That was my point about shallow depth speakers which sacrifice both of these factors. A 6 inch wide by 6 inch deep cone will always have more cone area than a 6 inch wide by 1 inch deep speaker.


More of this is discuesed in this older topic
Speaker cone designs and their effects - Car Audio | DiyMobileAudio.com | Car Stereo Forum

Oh man.. Mays just said :gtfo2:
Lol..

I highly doubt OP needs to get that technical with speakers either way. He's building a relatively low budget system and he's working with an audio shop. I'm not even sure why the shop isn't handling all the details for him. It sounds like to me he needs to find a better shop.

I was trying to keep it simple. I just wanted to mention Shallow depth speakers and the potential pro's and con's.

I think you did keep it simple. My last comment was meant to be directed to Chopz's comment telling the OP to go do more research. The fact the OP posted on here instead of doing the research himself to begin with would suggest that is very unlikely to happen. And now it's time to get back to work...

Again, wrong. Well, part right, part wrong.

Beaming has to do with frequency and cone diameter, not cone curvature or depth.

When dealing with midrange frequencies (the most sensitive to human hearing), you don't use a "deep" cone. In fact, the shallower, the better. The deeper the cone, the more resonance, cone break-up and non-linearity you get from the cone.

Probably why some of the finest, most accurate midrange drivers in the world are flat, near flat, shallow, or not even cones at all.

Uh, no he didn't. But I'm saying that to you...

I can see how what i'm saying may be a bit misleading, but i'm not sure you are accurately following my point. My initial point was a lack of cone depth (cone concavity >cone area) sacrifices BASS response and impact. I didn't say anything about its way of handling higher frequencies, the article i posted even made this argument for me - post #4 by electrodynamics made this exact argument, in which i 100% agree to.

I'm sure i also wrote (maybe not in this thread), using such a driver with less cone area (flat, convex) would work well with a dedicated subwoofer or low bass driver. In this i think we are agreeing to the same thing. But in the case where this particularly driver has to do both the work for mids and low bass, a larger cone area is more beneficial. Of course you have the hybrid type drivers that use phase plugs and pointed dustcaps which will add a bit in articulations and decreasing "phase" cancellations which help out mids>highs. But that wasn't my point, it was made in the article...which is why i linked it.

If you sacrifice the overall width, you can gain some back with depth, which was my point about the smaller 5 1/2 speaker with a deeper cone depth oppose to a flat shallow depth speaker.

I also including somewhere how a domed tweeter or midrange driver is best for dispersion of higher frequencies, this clearly goes against the idea of cone concavity which works better with bass and larger excursions drivers.