Sydneykid

Just post up the settings (front and rear, toe, camber and caster) and I will give you my 20 cents worth. Cheers

Yes, they do make adjustable stabilser bars for road cars, I designed a large number of them. For heavens sake did you actually read the test results, let me quote Jim... That test was of Subaru bars carried out in 2002, I actually supervised the test and proof read the results for Jim. It kinda tickles my funny bone that you are quoting it back to me. At this point it is fairly obvious that you have dug yourself in too deep to back out now and admit that it is even remotely possible that you might be wrong. So I will stop trying to convince you. cheers

Simple, suggestion follow; 1. What's this the toe in on the rear? Toe out on the rear for oversteer. 2. While on the subject of toe, what's the front tow set to? 3. No mention of caster, for fast turn in, you need lots of caster. At least 7 degrees, 8 is better. 4. Soften the front spring and shock rate for more front grip, stiffen the rear spring rate and shock for less grip 5. Time to spend some money, an adjustable rear stabiliser bar is a must, $219 on the Group Buy at the moment. 6. I didn't see HICAS removed on your list, if it isn't, then it's long overdue. GTR Geoff has HICAS locking bars for around $150, with good DIY instructions. 7. I didn't see any rear subframe stiffness upgrades or alignment. They are also on the Group Buy for $105. 8. What's the rear camber? You need to eliminate almost all of the negative camber that you introduced by lowering it. That should fix the understeer problem. Cheer

Mine arrived via Express Post in ~48 hours from ordering. Good service. Looks pretty simple. 8 resistors, couple of IC's, 5 capacitors, coupl of plugs, 3 LEDs. About an hour to build, nothing tricky. Some suggestions; Write the values on the resistor tags, saves heaps of time searching colour codes Use shrink wrap for the cable ends, bit neater than tape I will post up how it goes together and works. Thanks for setting up the Group Buy NewKleer. cheers

You have avoided the questions I posted. And simply restated what you had previously posted. I will try and not fall into that trap myself. You agree that having a soft arm on one side and hard arm on the other side does not result in stagger of the anti roll rates. That is the case because the kinetic energy is passed from one wheel to the other via the free twisting of the torsional part of the bar. Is the problem that you are looking at leverage in isolation? One arm is shorter than the other, so the leverage is different side to side. But there is both movement ratio and leverage ratio to be considered. Sure there is more leverage on the side with the shorter arm, but there is an equal decrease in movement for the same kinetic energy. Maybe have a think about that. A common trap I have seen when discussion this with others is that they consider the arm and the closest bush (to that arm) to be the relevant relationship. When in fact that is not the case, the only relationship that matters is between the two wheels linked by the stabiliser bar. Actually the two springs linked by the stabiliser bar. Which you can see quite plainly see on later Commondoors and BM's where the stabiliser bar links are effectively attached to the lower spring seats. At this point I think I have typed enough and I have explained it as many different ways as I can. If it doesn't click, then at least I have tried. I can only suggest that you actually try it, stick the adjustable bar on full soft on one side and full hard on the other side and try a common degree (left and right) slalom. There should be a dramatic difference in anti roll stagger if what you believe is in fact correct. I have done this test with a famous race driver instructor (no I won’t risk being accused on name dropping again). He reckoned I was full of shit, so I asked him to prove me wrong. We set up a Honda Integra with a 24mm Whiteline adjustable rear stabiliser bar, without him knowing, I varied the rear settings between 1 and 3, 2 and 2 and 3 and 1. He couldn’t tell the difference, despite several laps of Oran Park trying. He guessed wrong 3 out of 3 times. Another bottle of Jack for the collection. Maybe you should have a go at the same test. Since you would mostly race on the Paperclip, which has a dominance of right hand corners, being able to easily run anti roll stagger may be an advantage, if you are in fact correct of course. cheers

Both Motec and Autronic have "self tune" using an F&W lambda sensor. You basically input a target A/F ratio and they adjust the fuel maps to it as you drive. For example 2 laps of Bathurst to tune a Mazda 2.5litre V6 starting with simple basic maps. If I remember rightly the Electromotive also does similar. I haven't seen one that does ignition timing based on a knock sensor input, yet. Now that would complete the self tune picture and turn dynos into dynosaurs. cheers

Bit of missenterpretation going on here, let me make it quite clear I have had this discussion with litterly hundreds of people. Eventually most of them go "MMMM ....AAAH ... I get it!". All I am trying to do is to get you to that point. I don't know what you know or what you don't know, so unfortunately I have to assume that everything needs to be explained. I am sorry if that offends, but I don't know of any other way. Please let me make sure that we understand each other; 1. You now agree that it is OK to have a rotating adjuster on only one side of the stabiliser bar. That it doesn't lead to stagger in the bar rates. Because I got the feeling that you didn't believe that was the case previously. Because you posted this; I have found that once people grasp this concept the rest is easy. That's why I spent a bit of time (and a few words) on it in the previous post and used a couple of real world examples to prove the point, sorry if it appeared to be name dropping, that was not my intention. 2. This means the effect of stiffening one arm (connected to one wheel) is passed to the other arm (connected to the other wheel). This results in a uniform (side to side) increase in anti roll. Is that correct? 2. Do you agree that shortening the arms decreases the leverage (of the wheel movement) on the bar ? Hence increases the anti roll? 3. Now if you agree with #1, #2 and #3, please tell me why you think that decreasing the leverage on one arm (connected to one wheel) is not passed to the other arm (connected to the other wheel)? 4. In conclusion, if the stiffness increase (due to less leverage) is passed from one wheel to the other, then why would the anti roll rates be different side to side? Obviously I am using the example of stiffness, less leverage and anti roll increases, but it equally applies to softening, more leverage and anti roll decreases. Even after a healthy discussion, some are not believers and that's OK by me. As long as I have done all I can to explain the process, I can rest easy. cheers

Suggestion follow; 1. Yep, I find I am repeating myself a lot lately, the search button must be hard to find. 2. I have never actually used a CDI system with a Power FC, we use the Motec CDI's with Motec ECU's. There are basically 2 types of igition systems involved in the various models of RB's that result in fundamentally different Power FC's. Loosely they are what I call "separate ignitor" and "ignitor on coil". Logically I can't see why you couldn't use a 6 channel CDI with either of the Power FC styles. But maybe the problem is the lessor models of CDI's with 2, 3 or 4 channels. Neither of the Power FC's wouldn't like the joined cylinders (wasted spark) that would result from using one of those lessor models. Maybe that is the real issue, not that Power FC's won't work with CDI's in general. I suspect that I will have to face up to that problem sometime next year as I am nearing the limit of the standard coils on the RB31DET. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. cheers

Since the transfer case and the front tailshaft are on the drivers side and the exhaust is on the passengers side, I seriously doubt that this is an issue. The front drive shafts are miles in front of the dump/engine pipe, so that is obviously not an issue either. A few of the Stagea (RB25DET & 4wd) guys have upgraded their dump/engine pipes. Maybe pop over to the Stagea forum and check out their results and photos. cheers

What sort of stuff have you picked up? On the race cars I keep finding little areas on the maps (load/rpm) where I can tidy up the A/F ratios. I reckon I have changed about 800 of the 1200 load points on the Motec. Most only by small increments, some by more than I would have anticipated was possible. Next year I am going to spend a lot less time on race team stuff and more time on my own cars. Using the Datalogit, I am hoping to do similar with the knock sensor readings and the ignition timing. I reckon that there is a heap of time to be had from improving the response through the whole rpm range with fuel trim and ignition advance. Stuff that you can't do on the dyno, well I guess you could, but it would take days and cost a bomb. cheers PS; no progress on the Tech Edge kit yesterday or today as I have been helping to get a number of Group Buy suspension kits out. Saturday I am out at the A1 GP, so it might be early next week before I can get back to finish it.

I am going to stay out of the subjective arguments and try a few facts, so as to be helpful in making Skylines go faster; I assume your gearbox has the standard 3.321 ratio 1st gear and the 1.902 second gear. If that's the case, then if you upchange at ~8,000 rpm in 1st gear the rpm will drop to ~4,500 rpm in 2nd gear. That's a drop from 415 4wkw (at 8,000 rpm) to 105 4wkw (at 4,500 rpm). Until you change the gearbox ratios, that's a fact. If I also assume your gearbox has the standard 1.308 third gear, then if you upchange at ~8,000 rpm in 2nd gear, the rpm will drop to ~5,500 rpm in 2nd gear. That's a drop from 415 4wkw (at 8,000 rpm) to 200 4wkw (at 4,500 rpm). Until you change the gearbox ratios, that's also a fact. I know that is not a true measure of response, it is a measure of average power, which is the reason why cars with less max power (but higher average power) run faster times. You should be also concerned about response until such time as you have a gearbox that does not require you to close the throttle on gearchanges. Because any poor throttle response is most certainly costing you time. cheers PS; If you want to test this out, and you don't have a data logger, then the best way is to point a video camera at the tacho during a run. Then you can play it back in slow motion. It is also a good way to improve your times, you pick up all sorts of little things that go by so fast in real time with the adrenalin up. In a 10 sec 1/4 run it is the little things that add up to a lot.

Hi Gav, I run the race car engines in and then tune them in one day. I leave home early (around 5.00 am) and drive to Bathurst. Lots of variable conditions, long hills, some freeway running, short steep climbs, descents on overrun, etc etc. Have breakfast (around 7.30am) and then drive it back to the workshop (around 11.00 am) with the same mixed conditions, plus a bit of traffic. You can feel how much better it is coming up Mt Victoria and how well it cruises on the freeway on the way home, compared to how tight it was on the way there. Let it cool down till after lunch and then do a leak down test. If it's OK, drop the Castrol GTX (mineral) and the oil filter and check them out for contaminents. If OK, fill it up with Castrol Formula R (Synthetic) and a new oil filter. Then stick it on the dyno (around 2.00pm) and tune it for power. Home by 4.30 pm. This driving the car around for months and thousands of k's running it in is rubbish. If it isn't run in after that sort of a drive, it was not built to the corrrect tolerances and most likely never will run in properly. My tip is to get on with it, don't doddle around for months expecting a better result, you don't actually achieve anythng, other than frustration. cheers PS; yes, I always do at least one lap while I am at The Mountain.

Nope, it's the better way. Turn the boost up and it will detonate, so you have to retard the ignition timing. That costs power and looses response. Or you could reduce the compression ratio, that just looses even more response. There is always the "race fuel" option of course I saw an R33GTR with AFM's make 1100 bhp and do an 8 at 160 mph, does that count? cheers

Sydney Shock Absorbers are the Bilstein agent. Top Performance are the Koni agent. cheers

Springs lowered 2" will have to have higher spring rates (usually around 30% minimum), otherwise the suspension will bottom out due to the reduced travel. Standard (new) Skyline shocks don't handle the standard spring rates very well. Well used shocks are even worse, so there is no way they are going to control springs with ~30% higher rate. When you lower an R32/33/34 Skyline they get excessive negative camber. This results in lousy handling due to the reduced tyre contact patch and wears the inside of the tyres rapidly. This is what is needed for each height increment, measured from the centre of the wheel to the guard verticaly; Standard (new) height is 380/370 mm front /rear 360/350 mm needs only the standard rear camber adjusters 350/340 mm needs 1 front camber kit and 1 rear camber kit 340/330 mm needs I front camber kit and 2 rear camber kits Check out the R33GTST Whiteline/Bilstein Group Buy for more details; http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...showtopic=85467 cheers

For the guys that have been patiently waiting for their kits, please check your PM's for the latest update. For those that haven't yet ordered their kits (or parts) most items are in stock at Bilstein and Whiteline now. There are only a limited number of Bilsteins on the next airfreight shipment, then there will be no stock until after Xmas. So get in now. cheers

Don't think of a stabiliser like it is a torsion bar (spring) connected to the wheel at one end and the chassis at the other end. You can't look at a stabiliser bar as if it is locked to the chassis (or rear axle) simpy because it isn't, it is free to rotate (via the bushes). Think of it as a torsion bar with the ends connected to the wheels, the anti roll is the effect between the wheels. The "middle" of the bar is irrelevant. As I said in the previous post, don't get hung up the linkage angles. They do have an effect, but it is minor in this case. Geoff has been under the Ozemail Falcons and I have been under the GRM Commodoors (and Monaros) and I can assure that you they only have an adjuster on one side of both front and rear stabiliser bars. For exactly the reason Geoff posted, it would be almost imposssible to synchronise the adjustment as it is done on the move, with the suspension working. cheers

A dyno graph is no idication of response. An extreme example, just to make the point...........what if I held the engine at 4,000 rpm (with dyno load) for say a minute until the boost stabilised, then read off the power. Is that good response? Of course it isn't, response is how long it takes after you push the throttle. I haven't found a dyno yet that can do that consistently. cheers

Reduce the restrictions and run less boost and make more power. B) cheers

Yes, you are partially bypassing the AFM, best to plumb the vent back into the turbo inlet. Also stops the dust and dirt getting in (sealed system). Vacuum hose cost ~$5 from SupaCheap for several metres cheers

OOOO goody, I feel a heavy discussion about to happen. What you are describing (by moving the stabiliser mounts on the diff) is leverage effect on the tyre. As you move the stabiliser bar mounting points, the tyre has a longer (or shorter leverage) action on the bar. You are not changing the stabiliser bar rate itself. A stabiliser bar is a pass through device, it passes the spring rate from one wheel to the other (on the same axle) via free rotation through the bushes. So whether you shorten or lengthen one arm (of the stabiliser bar) or both, it doesn't matter. The effect is passed from one tyre to the other, so all that matters is the total length of the bar. There is a mild effect of the slightly different linkage angle, but that is small enough to be ignored for this excercise. Take a look at a V8Supercar stabiliser bar and you will find it only has a rotator on one arm to change the antiroll. cheers

The Japanese specify different valving in their Bilsteins, they like the rougher ride for some reason. I can get the valves changed for you to my (Australian) rates. Revalve usually costs about 1/2 what new shocks cost, as long as nothing is worn or damaged of course. First you need to have a look at the spring rates, because that is more than likely 80% of the harshness. This thread will show you how to measure your springs and I will work out the springs rates for you. http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...showtopic=79157 cheers

PM sent, vacuum plumbing looks fishy. But hard to tell from the angle of the photo. Wasegate actuator works on pressure not flow, so hose size is pretty much irrelevant. I have never seen a Nissan solenoid fail, they are pretty bullet proof. The new 1.25 mm vent = higher boost than the old 1.0 mm vent, because more air is being bypassed (away from the wastegate actuator). You didn't mention that in your PM. cheers

In the examples above, all 3 guys drove their car home without a problem. cheers

I deliberately tried one at 12 psi, lasted 4 laps (1 warm up and 3 fast) at Oran. Ben's lasted 5 laps at Wakefield at 12 psi. I warned a guy running 12 psi that it would happen to him. He reckoned it wouldn't 'cause he never drives on the circuit His got his ceramic in the cat disease driving hard up the hill from the Mooney Mooney bridge on the F3. Cost him a new turbo and a bottle of JD (he lost the bet ). tick....tick......tick cheers