Sydneykid

Check out the Group Buy for your model cheers

Not standard GTR suspension. The only standard adjustments are front and rear toe and a very small amount (0.25 degrees) of rear camber. Check out the Group Buy threads for details and comments from the 80 or so guys who have bought kits. cheers

I see your point, I guess my problem is my cars always handle well and, on the handling to power ratio, my leaning is always towards the handling side of the equation. Plus maybe I drive around the corners faster than the average GTR driver, although that might be a bit presumptuous My personal experience has been that a 300rwkw R32GTR with standard callipers, braided lines, removed backers, fresh Castrol brake fluid, DBA 4000 series slotted rotors and Hawke HT10 pads has sufficient braking capacity to lock up (on demand ) 245/45/17 Yokohama A032R’s. This performance can be sustained for 5-6 flat out laps of Oran Park and 9-10 laps of Eastern Creek. By that stage the tyres are rooted (overheated) and have much more of an effect on the braking performance than the brakes themselves. It is quite likely that a 500 rwkw GTR on full slicks, with not so good suspension and a G force averse driver would not find the same brake hardware up to scratch. However my suggestion then would be not to spend the money on brakes, but on better suspension and some circuit race driving lessons. I personally feel that the lap times would be vastly superior for the same $ spend. cheers

What I am working on is; 1. a new kit with the current outer offset crush tube and the "new" inner bush and offset crush tube 2. a "upgrade" kit with just the "new" inner bush and offset crush tube for guys who want more adjustment and already have a KCA336 kit 3. retaining the current KCA336 kit for the guys that don't need the extra camber adjustment Those are my intentions, but (as with all products) they will have to be approved by Whiteline. cheers

Before I go any further I should point out that there are hundreds of R32’s out there that have had KCA336 kits in them for many years and not had a problem. The extreme uses we put or cars to (lots of camber, plenty of caster, sticky tyres, good shocks and springs, stabiliser bars and high G forces etc) just accentuates what is a known problem with Nissan’s R32 design. Moving on to your questions; Yep, mostly it is the inner bush that fails first, but not always. Sometimes both inner and outers fail together. The bush failures are due to the lack of compliance of the inner bush, because of the alloy spacer it is too thin. What I am testing replaces the alloy spacer and the thin bush with a thicker bush with a wider shank that increases the compliance ie; allows for more distortion before ripping into the polyurethane. I am testing a range of polyurethane hardness (duro) bushes. There is a balance required between compliance to prevent premature wear and stiffness to retain the geometry. I am working in the usual range of 70 to 95 duro. Sometimes the moulder does the bushes in red sometimes in yellow, it's just a colour. No problem, you money is safe, but Whiteline won’t release the inner parts until I have tested them. Unfortunately that meant a delay, as I have to test the various polyurethane formulas. I have 2 more sets to test and I only have one R32, so it will take time. cheers

The issue with R32’s chewing out bushes in the front upper control arms is a known problem, hence why Nissan changed to the wide spaced inner pivot joints on R33’s and R34’s. As a few of you know, I am currently testing a revised camber kit for the front of R32’s. The revision is to allow more camber adjustment by utilising an offset crush tube in both the inner and outer joints. The normal camber kit only has an offset crush tube on the outer joint. As well as allowing more camber adjustment, less negative camber for excessively lowered road cars and more for circuit cars, it will add more compliance into the upper arm inner pivot joints. This should noticeably decrease the propensity for the (current) low compliance inner bush to be chewed out by the distortion caused by the R32 geometry. Which (as a couple of you have found out) is exacerbated by increased camber and (mostly) caster. The off the shelf KCA336 kit contains both alloy and poly bushes for use in the inner pivot point, refer picture following; What I am testing uses full polyurethane bushes (no alloy) in the inner pivot point,.with an offset crush tube for adjustment This will allow capacity for more of the inbuilt distortion (on suspension movement) to be absorbed by the thicker shanking on the bush. Following is a picture of a Nismo upper control arm with the adjustable bushes installed in the inner and outer joints. Post picture here I have only just started road testing, so it is early days yet. I will also be carrying out some circuit testing in the R32GTST. If it stands up to that punishment then I will be offering the upgrade for those that want/need it. More updates will be posted as they occur. cheers PS; it is worth mentioning at this time that the Group Buy price on the KCA336 (for R32’s) and KCA348 (for R33’s, R34’s and Stageas) has been reduced from $272 to $183. This maintains the 15% discount on the Whiteline retail price (20% if the order is over $1K).

How about a higher CoF pad compound? Say a Performance Friction or a Hawke. cheers

Ooooh, very nice (rice). My brake callipers are more Snap On red, not candy apple like the cam covers. cheers

Using other cars as comparison is useless, for example Apexi make a Power FC for auto Toyotas. Apexi can do that because the power cut/reduction mapping in Toyotas is contained in the gearbox ECU, not the engine ECU. Simplistically, the ignition signal goes from the engine ECU to the gearbox ECU and then to the ignitor. So when the gearchanges happen the gearbox ECU does whatever is necessary (as determined by its shift logic program) to cut/retard the ignition. Noting that some cars do both fuel and ignition on gearchanges. Nissan (in their infinite wisdom) do not do that, the shift logic for ignition cut/retard is contained in the engine ECU. Change the engine ECU and you loose the programming for any power reduction on gearchanges. I should emphasise that Apexi have obviously found it not worthwhile to do the shift logic programming (ie; make auto Power FC's available for Nissans). Now if the programming costs that much to do and Apexi have found it not economical for 15 years, WHY/HOW would anyone else? So, I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for someone to come up with an aftermarket auto ECU for Nissans. Moving onto the SITC question. Using an SITC in an auto Nissan (to control the ignition timing) was never ever a problem. The SITC sits between the CAS and the engine ECU. To change the ignition timing the SITC sends altered CAS signals to the engine ECU. For example if I want 5 degrees retarding timing the SITC simply sends a 5 degrees retarded signal to the engine ECU. The engine ECU then simply fires the ignitor at what it thinks is the standard timing. In an auto, the engine ECU cuts/retards the ignition on gearchanges, so having a slightly altered CAS signal (by the SITC) has almost zero effect on gearchange quality. This is not the same as some other ignition tuning devices (EManage for example) where they sit between the engine ECU and the ignitor. Hence some gearchange quality and gearbox protection is lost when they are used. Cheers

The tyres are the limiting factor in braking performance, using a full slick means that YOU have a higher limit. Therefore you will benefit from larger brakes until such time as the brakes’ performance once more exceeds the tyres’ grip (CoF). Once you reach that point, going larger in the brakes would have zero effect. To get any improvement in braking performance you would have to improve the grip levels first. In good condition, the standard Nissan Sumitomo callipers (4 spot front and 2 spot rear) with standard sized rotors and decent pads can easily exceed R type tyres CoF. So sticking BIG brakes on a road Skyline with road tyres is simply a waste of money from an improving performance view point. If all you are chasing is the look, then that's a different question. cheers

Post up the centre of wheel to guard measurements on all 4 cormers. Then I can tell you where the problem is. Cheer

Bump cheers

We use Ferrea, 1/2 mm oversize, makes nice power difference. Cheers

Yes, it will work. The R32 speedo drive is on top of the output shaft and the R33 speedo drive is below the output shaft. So the teeth have to be cut for the reverse direction. cheers

BCPR6ES-8 (if not then use -11 and gap them down) Cheers

Exceller changed ownership about 6 years ago. I have known the current owner since he was an apprentice, he's a great guy and knows his stuff. Wouldn't recommend them otherwise. Cheers

The front camber kit is $183 plus $5 freight on the Group Buy. The kit is quite extensive, picture follows; The upper control arm in R32's is easily removed (one bolt each end) and has bushes at the inner and outer pivot points. So you can remove the arms (one each side) and take them along to your local workshop for pressing. Around 20 tonnes is usually sufficient, but the age of R32's sometimes means that the standard steel cases are rusted to the arms and need more work to remove them. In comparison the new bushes press in fairly easily. Around $40-$50 (cash) usually covers it. cheers

Do you know what pre-ignition sounds like? If so then get into it, couple of degrees at a time, checking as you go with a timing light. Listen closely, especially during boost build. Normally you can sneak 4 or 5 degrees into them (every engine is different) without a problem. cheers

That's what slight R&R mapping feels like, flat response for several hundred rpm. Then it comes back to life. So my suggestions would be; 1. Yes 2. Yes cheers

In order of preference; • Heasmans - Sydenham • Exceller Steering Services – Bankstown • StGeorge Steering Services – Punchbowl • East Coast Suspension - Kirrawee • Adrian Moore Suspension - Gladesville cheers

Sounds like 100% BS to me. It would appear that they have no idea what the Engine ECU does to protect the auto gearbox or the volume and quality of mapping that is necessary to achieve that result. The facts are; 1. The auto gearbox has its own ECU to change gears, up, down, skip, slip, lock up the torque converter etc. 2. The standard Engine ECU retards and cuts the ignition on gear changes to give smooth changes and (mostly) to protect the gearbox from the torque loadings during the WOT gear changes. 3. That level of protection is necessary at STANDARD power. Obviously when you fit a Power FC (or any other ECU or piggyback) you are chasing LOTS MORE than standard power. 4. The standard Engine ECU has an EXTENSIVE set of maps to match the numerous gear change scenarios. Think about the variability’s, uphill, downhill, any one of 4 gears plus reverse, all throttle openings, boost levels etc etc. A Nissan engineer told me that the gear change logic code in the Engine ECU (for ignition cut and retard) was far greater in both volume and complexity that what was required to get the engine to run. 5. Power FC’s do not have that logic and they have no provision for it to be loaded. Do you really think that if it could be done economically Apexi wouldn’t have done it themselves? 6. It’s a piece of piss to get a Power FC to run the engine in an auto, been done heaps of times. The problem is no power cut on gear changes, so with full torque loadings they rip though clutch packs and belts like crazy. The gear changes are both harsh and uncomfortable. 7. The more power you have the worse the problem is. Toughening up the gearbox (vlave body upgrade, Kevlar belts etc) simply make the gear changes harsher and more uncomfortable. The gearbox still dies, it just takes a little longer. 8. To get the ignition cut/retard on gear changes you need the logic (programming) contained in the standard Engine ECU. That means it has to control the ignition timing. 9. Hence all you can do with the Power FC is control the fuel, hardly a brilliant tuning option. Do it for less than half the price with a DFA. So armed with the above information, ask them how they are going to program the ignition cut/retard on gear changes into the Power FC. Then watch their faces as the reality bites. cheers

My guess is the original misfiring wasn’t caused by the coils. In fact it has been my experience that it is very rarely actually caused by the standard coils. The most common cause (at higher than standard boost) is plug gap. The factory setting of 1.1 mm (40 thou) is too wide and the incoming airflow simply blows out the spark Gapping down to 0.8 mm (30 thou) is the most common fix, some need to go to 0.65 mm (25 thou). The second most common cause is tuning, this is particularly noticeable with the standard ECU. At higher than standard airflows the standard ECU moves into areas of rich and retarded mapping. This is sometimes incorrectly termed “boost cut”, both the word “boost” and the word “cut” are totally inappropriate. Boost is irrelevant, it is not unusual to get R&R mapping at standard boost. It’s the excessive airflow (as sensed by the AFM) that is the real issue. As for “cut”, well the truth is NOTHING is actually cut, the fuel still flows and the ignitor still fires the spark plugs via the coils. What causes the misfire is the extreme retarded ignition timing more than the rich A/F ratios. At higher rpms (over 5,000 rpm) the retarded ignition timing means that there is simply not enough time for the plug to ignite the mixture before the piston passes TDC. So tuning is basically a juggle between the maximum ignition advance and the minimum knock. The bottom line for you……..try gapping down to 0.65 mm (25 thou), if that doesn’t work then you have to do some tuning. If you have a standard ECU then the best you can do is try a little bit of ignition advance by rotating the CAS (anticlockwise for advance). If the misfire is light then that generally works. You then rely on the standard ECU knock protection to save your ass. If you have an aftermarket ECU, then it is simply a matter of gradually advancing the ignition (at the misfire RPM’s) while monitoring the knock levels and/or listening for pre-ignition. Hope that was of some help cheers

Sory for the delay, I missed this one. Front is ~ 500 lbs per inch (8.9 kg/mm) Rear is ~ 415 lbs per inch (7.4 kg/mm) cheers

Sorry for the delay 180 lbs per inch (3.2 kg/mm) cheers

Sorry for the delay 270 lbs per inch (4.8 kg/mm) Cheers