Sydneykid

I could easily write 20 or 30 pages on this subject, it’s not simple as you are getting deep into vehicle dynamics which is quite a complex subject. So I will keep it simple and brief; Ride comfort is best when the balance of the effective spring rates is close to the weight balance of the car. So a 60/40 weight balance should have somewhere near a 60/40 effective spring rate balance. R32/33/34's have the same movement (1 to 1) and leverage ratios (1 to 1) front and rear, so you can directly compare the spring rates. This is not the case with many other cars, for example in a Silvia (1.2 front and 1 rear) the compariosn is not as straight forward. The problem with the 4wd R32/33/34's is they understeer quite noticeably on corner entry and mid corner, plus when sufficient power is applied on corner exit the understeer generally decreases. One R32's the ATTESA is lower reacting so you can easily get corner exit oversteer until the torque split is more front biased. One way to mitigate the corner entry and mid corner understeer is to use a higher rear spring rate that the weight balance would indicate. The problem is you sacrifice ride comfort and make the corner exit oversteer worse, the more power it has the worse the problem. This is where and understanding of the Japanese circumstances is necessary. Firstly they tend have superior road surfaces to us, so higher spring rates don’t cause the same ride discomfort, plus losing traction due to poor road surface is less of problem. Secondly Japanese workshop hourly rates are unbelievably high, $500 per hour is not unusual. So when you get things fitted to your car every attempt is made to minimise the labour cost. This means fitting alignment products and carrying out complex wheel alignment set ups only occurs in heavily supported race cars. Lastly swaybars, the Japanese don't have our history of engineering, manufacturing and fitting swaybars to a large range of cars. So not a lot of their cars have them and only a small/limited range are available. Add all that together and we find that they try and do everything with one quick off the shelf, bolt on solution. Hence use higher spring rates than is ideal and have more of a rearward spring rate balance. Sure it's not technically correct, but a customer who pays $2K for a coil over kit, doesn't want to know about $3K to fit it and another $1K for a wheel alignment. Whereas here we have a large range of swaybars available, even adjustable ones and our labour costs are not so out of proportion to the parts costs. So we can take the technically correct route, have ride comfort that suites our conditions and end up with a superior handling solution. Cheers Gary

I have never used a GCG ball bearing high flow that DOESN'T use the standard oil and water lines, RB20, RB25, and Neo, all of them are simple bolt ons. Having had a number of GCG ball bearing high flows, R32GTST, R33GTST, R34GTT and Stagea, they are without doubt the best value for money upgrade for a road car. Sure there are cheaper high flows around but I have yet to find one that doesn't come up short in either fitment, power, response and/or durability. The problem I found with the GT30 use was not so much the turbo itself but the effect it had on the standard exhaust manifold. I cracked 3 in less than 12 months of use. All of them failed due to excessive heat in the log between #3 and the turbine flange. I also suspect that the extra weight of the GT30 was a contributor. With the GT30 in place I was able to extract 315 rwkw, but no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get the throttle response fast enough to satisfy my requirements. It always felt dull and slow to respond, plus it was very hard to drive briskly, it was either too slow or too fast. Launching it was a gamble, I'd get it right about 3 times out of 10, it was either bog down or wheelspin city. On the circuit it was very hard to drive, balancing the throttle was quite tricky because of the sudden ramp up in power where it doubled in 1,000 rpm. I got so pissed off with it I took it off when the 3rd manifold cracked and replaced it with the GCG ball bearing high flow it had before, 265 rwkw, nice and responsive, get the launch right every tiime, easy to drive briskly, everyday. What I liked about it so much and why I have the same turbo on the R33GTST, even though it has a built engine, is that it had more power everywhere, from idles to redline than when it was standard. The advantage of the built erngine is that I can get my 266 rwkw at 1 bar, so it has even more response because of the low boost I can slip lots of ignition timing into it, safely and drive it everyday everywhere, anytime.. When we get more E85 outlets I'm sure I can get an extra 10% out of it for 280 rwkw which is about as much as I believe an everyday 2wd Skyline needs. Cheers Gary

Sorry I'm not in that loop, try Boz, the driver trainers are plugged in as it's their livelyhood on the line when OP close. I will be at the CAMS office for a meeting tomorrow, so I will ask if anyone there knows anything. Cheers Gary

It slows down the response, obviously takes time for the exhaust to travel from the engine to the tail pipe. No big deal there at full throttle, but it can be a problem at low exhaust gas speeds. Plus you need to be careful with large diameter tailpipes that outside air doesn't sneak in and dilute the readings. Cheers Gary

Judging by that picture it doesn't have enough caster and/or camber. And the front spring rate and/or antir roll rate may also be too high. Cheers Gary

You got it Cheers Gary

Yet another furphy, I have yet to see any traction control and/or vehicle stability system that would in any way be affected by proper lowering. The simple systems rely on the ABS sensors to detect excessive wheel speed differences whereby the ECU cuts the power appropriately. The more sophisticated systems use the ABS sensors plus longitudinal and lateral G force sensors to detect excessive slip angle and/or excessive wheel speed differences whereby the ECU cuts the power and/or applies individual wheel brakes appropriately. There is nothing in those processes, which applies to 95% of the vehicles fitted with traction control and/or vehicle stability systems, that would be affected by the vehicles height. In the 5% of cases left, top end Merc's. BMW's etc they have height sensors that detect the load (eg, passengers and luggage in the boot) and make minor changes to the vehicle stability system program. But I have yet to find one of those where they don't have self levelling suspension, so you can't lower them without zeroing the self levelling anyway. The announcement is quite simply spin put out there to support a stupid, illogical and poorly conceived piece of legislation that was done to get the general public to believe that the totally useless NSW government is actually doing something. This person is still not fooled Cheers Gary

Put the guy out of his missery, your car has 65% of its weight over the front wheels and you want to put a larger tyre on the rear. Does that sound logical to you? Cheers Gary

This is pretty much the result I would expect when comparing a single 650 bhp turbo with twins capable of 760 bhp. Cheers Gary

Way off topic, but it's your thread, this is what it looks like now If you know your Camaros you will recognise this one., it's the look the owner is going for (no, this one is not going to be mine) but without the headlight covers We are going for the Minilight style wheels as per Bob Jane's Camaro The 572 in CF's has Hogan single throttle body injection, we are going multiple, the same guy who made Stu's inlet system is making the one for this engine My job, as usual is to tune the suspension, it's a long way from the standard layout, 5 link, watts linkage, Koni 3 way adjustable coil overs with rocker actuation on a Moser 9" rear end with 32 spline axles, rack and pinion power steering, the front also has 3 Koni coil overs with tubular double wishbones, 2" drop spindles etc etc. Should go OK, it'll be about 100 kgs lighter than an R33GTST with around 750 bhp and 750 ft/lbs of torque. If I like it I would like to build one for myself, other than the body restoration (lots of rust to fix) it's just a big kit car, all the parts are off the shelf from the US. Cheers Gary

Yes you can use the standard D brackets and links on the front for both fixed and adjustable swaybars. Yes you can use the standard D brackets and links on the rear but only for fixed (non adjustable) swaybars. The rear adjustable swaybars come with links. There is, its in the middle of the lower control arm. Yes Cheers Gary

That’s why I always like to work out the engine rpm. Cheers Gary

Too late, decades too late in fact. I have had quite a few of them, I'm currently doing some work on 2 push rodders at the moment. One is Nascar Chevy 6 litre, 850 bhp with a 10,500 rpm limit that's going into a circuit race car. Swapping from methanol carby to E85 injected, it won't lose much. Now that is an engine with serious throttle response. The other is going into a '69 Camaro road car, it's a 574 cube Chevy crate engine, yes that's 9.4 litres. Out of the box with 725 bhp from a carby on pump 98 but not for long, it's getting a multi throttle set up like Stuart's R32LS1. Sorry, too far off topic Cheers Gary

Personally I'm onto my 4th RB30, with lots of different turbo combinations and I've been doing them since 1999 when the first one went into an R32GTR. Actually a couple of years before that, when we built an RB30 with an RB20 top end, now that was a head buster. All up I think we have built around 30 x RB30's in both 2WD and 4WD configuration. Maybe my tastes are different because I come from a long time circuit racing background, I just can't tolerate any lag, slow throttle response annoys the hell out of me. I simply can't drive a car anywhere near the limit without pin sharp throttle response. That's what I do, that's why I build them the way that I do, that's where my satisfaction comes from. I'm not saying that I'm right, all I am saying is I know what I like/want/need out of my cars. If it satisfies your requirements then I am very happy for you and I truly hope that you enjoy it for a long time. Cheers Gary

I've had the opinion for a long time that GT-RS's are OK in single configuration on an RB25 but in twin form they are too laggy for my tastes, even on an RB30. The best RB26 I ever drove had a pair of 2530's on it and it did everything just the way I like it. Paul's remarkable results with 2530's even exceeded my expectations. Next year (I think I said that last year) I am going to try a VQ35 with GT-RS's, maybe the extra 500 cc's will make the difference. Cheers Gary

I punched it into my gear ratio chart that we use for selecting diff and gearbox ratios for each circuit. The formula is pretty simple as 4th gear is 1 to 1; Three common tyre sizes for a GTR, 235/45/17 is 512 revolutions per kilometer, 255/40/17 is 515 revolutions per kilometer and 265/35/18 is 512 revolutions per kilometer. 1000 engine revolutions per minute / 4.1 diff ratio = 244 wheel revolutions per minute 244 wheels revolutions per minute x 60 minutes in an hour = 14640 wheel revolutions per hour 14640 wheel revolutions per hour / 515 revolutions per kilometer (for 255/40/17) = 28.4 kph per 1000 engine rpm 14640 wheel revolutions per hour / 512 revolutions per kilometer (for 265/35/18 and 235/45/17) = 28.6 kph per 1000 engine rpm There is a bit of tyre diameter growth due to centrifigal force, so 29 kph per 1000 engine rpm is close enough for this exercise. If you have a different sized tyre it can make a difference, obviously, but even a 225/50/16 is 519 revolution per kilomete so not a big deal . The above assumes a half worn tyre, say 5 mm of tread left at 30 psi. A new tyre slightly less rpm per kilometer, a worn out tyre slightly more. Obviously when we are setting up a race car we measure each tyre's circumference as we need to feed that into the data logger. Check it for yourself, 3,000 rpm is my normal test in 4th gear, so it should be 3 x 29 = 87 kph, plus around 4% for speedo error, so your speedo should show around 90 kph. Cheers Gary

OK, my original post wasn't that far out. It's in 4th gear (1 to 1) which is around 29 kph per 1000 rpm with a 4.1 diff ratio. The scale is slightly different as the original post said 0 to 200 kph scale when in fact it's 0 to 220 kph Maximum torque is at ~138 kph, that's 138 / 29 = 4,750 rpm Maximum horsepower is at ~180 kph, that's 180 / 29 = 6,250 rpm The big miss on my behalf was that it has 80 rwkw at 3,000 rpm, 87 kph which is 87 / 29 = 3,000 rpm As the big man once said "Two out three ain't bad". Cheers Gary

Oops! This link appears to be broken. Moving on, that's a furphy, complete rubbish, it's nothing more than a feeble attempt to fool some of the people some of the time, well this people isn't fooled this time. Let's try this logic, what difference is having the bumpers the same static height when the car accelerates or brakes and the bumper height changes? Better still, let's use the same example but in a far more common style of accident; A standard commercial van with a static rear bumper height of 700mm stops suddenly, the rear bumper then goes up to 900 mm. A Porsche Carrera with front bumper height of 700 mm also brakes suddenly and the bumper is now at 500 mm The Porsche will slide under the back of the can and take the drivers head off with bumper The van with its rear wheels off the ground fires off and strikes god knows what. Tell me how having the bumpers at the same static height made one iota of difference. In case no one bothered to mention, front to rear accidents are the most common. Cheers Gary

Have I got it right, max torque is around 4,250 rpm and max horsepower is around 6,100 rpm and it makes less than 50 rwkw at 3,000 rpm? Or is my maths totally screwed up? Cheers Gary

Yep it's wrong, HKS have it right Cheers Gary

Easily Not if you want the ceramic turbine to stay attached Try a search on "datalogit". The most important question for you to answer, what ECU is your tuner experienced with? Yep Quite dangerous if you don't know what you are doing, plus the standard ECU wil beat you every time. Try a search on "+rich+retard". Waste of money, keep it simple. Especially if you are going to use the ECU to control the boost later on. Turbo charged motorcycles? Once you add boost you will be surpised at the changes it makes to your tuning experience. Oh well, never mind Cheers Gary

Hang on.....the Townsville numbers (160K) are 3 days added together, typical Cockrun rubbish. So it's really only 53K average per day, despite the spin the fact is there weren't 160K people visiting Townsville. Last year's Oran Park attendance was hushed up by Cockrun because he was aiming for the street race, but the crowd on Sunday was close to 50K. Hardly a big deal difference when you know the truth. Cheers Gary

The big difference is you can't see a boost controller or a boost gauge from the outside, just driving down the street excessive (more than 50 mm) lowering is obvious. Plus it's a new law so you can bet that they will have an early blitz so as to be seen to be doing something to enforce this life saving new law. Cheers Gary

R32/33/34's come standard with coil overs, so I assume you mean height adjustable spring/shock units. Based on my experience 99.9999% of them won't pass this requirment, hence would be illegal. Cheers Gary

It's not necessary to use aftermarket links on the front, adjustable or non adjustable swaybar, the standard links work just fine. That's why the front swaybar comes supplied with D bushes only On the rear you can use the standard links on a non adjustable swaybar, like the fron they come with D bushes only. But you have to use the supplied links with an adjustable rear swaybar to fit the bladed ends. Stageas, like Skylines, do not have weak mounts for the swaybar links, it's not a Subaru. Cheers Gary