Sydneykid

R34GTT will also fit. As will Stagea S2 manual. Cheers Gary

What class? Cheers Gary

Heaps, it all depends on where you want to stop. The rear subframe NVH weights, the exhaust system NVH dampers, the standard rear camber adjuster bolts, the complete HICAS system, the sound deadening, the spare wheel, the tool kit, the battery, the speakers, the air con, the standard seats weigh heaps, the rear wiper and washer etc etc. Cheers Gary

I'm most likely the one, over 200 Skylines and Stageas running around with my kits in them. PM me and I might be able to help. Cheers Gary

These are my spec, so work great in an auto Stagea. I can supply new, matching, fronts if you need the full set. Cheers Gary

Hi guys, great to see thsi thread has grown so much, 51 pages, that's a lot of cars with the kits. I'd like to finish Ben's IEBC, DFA and Controller but I need a copy of the instructions, I had at least 3 sets but they must have been chucked in the last big home office clean out. I have a book of course, but there are some instructions not shown in there that I need. Please if any one has a set of all 3 it would be greatly appreciated if you could scan them, email them, fax them, post them, whatever method is best for you. I'll cover the cost of whatever method you choose, just PM me for the details. Thanks Gary

Did you compare the weights? In total the GTR rear end weighs more than the GTST. But what you have saved in unsprung weight is a good idea. Yep Nope Yep, but that's the least of your problems, the lower control arms are different. the front subframe, the radius rods, the K frame etc etc. Simply put, the 4WD stuff doesn't fit a 2WD. So are GTR Chasing weight reduction by using GTR stuff is a waste of time, most of it weighs more. There are few exceptions such as, bonnet, front guards and rear hubs, but most mechanical stuff weighs more, lots more. Get the scales out. My pleasureCheers Gary

Yes Cheers Gary

395 mm front and 390 mm rear, brand new. They settle around 5 mm until 60,000 k's then the front standard shocks are stuffed and the front springs wear out real fast. It's not unusual to see them with standard springs at 370/360 mm. V Spec & N1 is 10 mm lower, ie 385/380 mm, new. Cheers Gary

In a GTS4 355 mm front and 345 mm rear, centre of wheel to guard if you want decent ride comfort (for a sports car) and good handling. Cheers Gary

The recommended ride height never changes, 355 mm front and 345 mm rear. But it rides like crap and handles even worse. Did you buy it to look at it or drive it? It's OK to say "look at it", that's a perfectly acceptable answer. But the truth you can't say both, in a GTR you just can't have super low ride height at the same time as decent ride and good handling. Cheers Gary

A couple of guys have asked me to comment on the dyno graphs, obviously this is rather complex and very subjective. Plus there are some details missing which would help, for example temperatures, ambient and shock body, plus the stroke used for the testing. I will keep it simple and brief, for a quick initial run through. One of the most useful comparisons is pairs of shocks, it makes tuning the handling of a car very difficult if the shocks have different damping characteristics side to side. Starting at the last graph, #4; 1. Take a look at the rear shock rebound comparison, at 4 in/sec the right rear (RR) at setting R25 the rebound damping is around 600 lbs, while the left rear (LR) at 4 in/sec (LR) at setting R25 is around 500 lbs. 2. Now take a look at the rear shock compression (generally called bump) comparison, at 4 in/sec the right rear (RR) at setting C25 the compression damping is around 60 lbs, while the left rear (LR) at 4 in/sec (LR) at setting C25 is around 80 lbs. That's fairly large difference +20% (600 - 500 = 100 / 500) in rebound damping side to side. But it is made more noticeable by the reverse difference, of -33% (80 - 60 = 20 / 60) in compression damping. This is a fairly easy fix, just set the damping on the RR shock rebound 2 or 3 points of adjustment lower than the LR. Then set the damping on the RR shock rebound 2 or 3 points of adjustment higher than the LR. I would confirm those compensation settings on the shock dyno before I went racing for the day and make sure that they are recorded in the car's set up log. Then before the next outing I would be looking at the shock internals to work out why there is such a difference and fix it before the next race meeting. 3. Having had a look at the rear shocks and hopefully gained some understanding from the above, let's have a look at graph #2. If you look closely you should be able to see a similar difference in the front pair. My guess is the shock dyno operator has noticed this difference and done some compensation testing. That's why there is testing done at R24 C27 on the FR shock. It looks to be an attempt at matching R25 C25 on the FL. 4. Lastly, looking at first graph, #1, some overall impressions. The rebound to compression damping ratio is over 4 to 1. That's usually a sign of the shock being designed to run with high spring rates. Since not a lot of compression damping is required as the spring is very firm and a quite a bit of rebound damping is required to control the big spring rates. This transfers across to the damper adjustments, with a large range of adjustment on the rebound in comparison to the much smaller adjustment range on bump. 5. While we are on graph #1, take a look at the shape of the rebound curves, the lower adjustment 0 to 15 is convex while the higher damper rates 15 to 30 are concave. It is similarly reflected in the compression damping, although not as noticeable. This is actually the reverse of what I would prefer from my shocks, I would like to proportionally add more damping at higher shaft speeds. While leaving the lower shaft speeds with relatively less damping so that the tyres can more accurately follow the small deviations in the track surface. That's about all I have time for right now, work beckons. Have a study of the graphs and see if you can identify what I am talking about above. If you can, then look for other things that might be of interest, keeping in mind the lack of the outside date such as spring and swaybar rates, tyres, track etc. Cheers Gary

As you may have noticed, Nissan uses the same sized rotors on many different models and a few years ago I quickly measured an S2 and it was the same as an R33GTST. I notice someone has put up in my "Stagea Brakes" post #1 that I was wrong and that the offset is different on S2's than R33GTST. I find that hard to believe, as you can see from the following list all 5 stud Nissan (inc. Skylines 2WD and 4WD) have the same offset, 54 mm (or 53.75 to be pedantic). Someone else reckons the S2 rotors are 290 mm diameter, which I also find hard to believe as no other Skylines have 290 mm rotors, anyway a 3 mm radius wouldn't make any difference, they would be OK to use. Stagea S1, same as S14, S15, R32GTST, 300ZX, etc Front Disc Diameter 280 mm Height 54 mm Thickness 30 mm Min. Thickness 28 mm Center Hole 68 mm Bolt Holes 5 R33GTST, R32GTR etc Front Disc Diameter 296 Height 53.7 Thickness 30 Min. Thickness 28 Center Hole 68 Bolt Holes 5 R34GTT Front Disc Diameter 310 Height 53.7 Thickness 30 Min. Thickness 28 Center Hole 68 Bolt Holes 5 R33/34GTR Brembo Front Disc Diameter 324 Height 53.8 Thickness 30 Min. Thickness 28 Center Hole 68 Bolt Holes 5 If someone has the definite dimensions of a S2 front rotor I would appreciate knowing if my original measurements were in fact correct. Cheers Gary

This is prime example of selective argument, in this case where 3 points are raised (capacity, cycle and rpm) and then arguing each point individually. Whilst ignoring that the 3 points are related, and in trying to support one point you undermine the other point. I have put forward a view from the very first post and that view has not changed, that being a 13B is a 3.9 litre 2 stroke that only revs to 3,000 rpm and that Mazda lied about all 3 for marketing reasons. I have repeat that view many, many times, to remind the readers exactly what my view is and that it has not changed. Keep in mind the 3 capacity arguments; 1.3 litre = 2 combustion chambers 2.6 litre = eccentric shaft degrees of rotation (1080 versus 760) 3.9 litre = what it pumps in a complete cycle (rotation, orbit) of the rotors. Now let's start with capacity versus cycle; In order to claim 1.3 litres you have to support the argument that there are only 2 "combustion chambers" so 2 of the 4 Otto cycle processes occur simultaneously in the same combustion chamber. That's a 2 stroke. That's ridiculous, because it has more than 1 combustion chamber (cylinder if you prefer). We only count Otto cycle in one combustion chamber at a time. More importantly by making this statement you have now switched over to a rotary having 3 combustion chambers per rotor. Please make up your mind, which is it, 1 combustion chamber per rotor or 3? A 2 stroke piston engine does the full 4 processes of the Otto cycle, it just happens to do 2 of them at the same time. Because of this simultaneous action, a 2 stroke can do the 4 process in one cycle of the pistons. Whereas a 4 stroke takes 2 cycles. The obvious problem with your argument is that you selectively use 1 or 3 combustion chambers to diffuse comparison with the 2 stroke cycle. It's a good tactic, but only if we ignore the capacity argument that you are trying to support at the same time. So what's you choice? You can't switch between them to suite your argument at the time, you have been but it's time to stop, make you choice and then stick to it. So is it one combustion chamber, in which case it's a 2 stroke or is it 3 combustion chambers, in which case it's still a 2 stroke. Oh give me a break, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west that a fact, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. You missed it again, obviously I'm being too subtle, let's have another go. "The 1.3L 2 stroke piston engine equivalent would be a 2 cylinder each of 654cc capacity". How many crankshaft revolutions? That would be one. "The 2.6L 4 stroke piston engine equivalent would be a 4 cylinder each of 654cc capacity". How many crankshaft revolutions? That would be two. What you are saying is a 1.3L rotary would be a 2 cylinder each of 654cc capacity". How many eccentric shaft revolutions? That would be one (OOOOOO look it's a 2 stroke). Or a 3.9L rotary would be a 6 cylinder each of 654cc capacity". How many eccentric shaft revolutions? That would be one (OOOOOO look it's a 2 stroke). There's your problem with the 4 stroke argument, if you use 2 combustion chambers you loose on simultaneous cycles and 1 revolution of the eccentric shaft. If you choose 3 combustion chambers per rotor, you loose again on simultaneous cycles and 1 revolution of the rotor. What you are currently doing is arguing that it's a 2 combustion chamber engine to keep it at 1.3 litres, and then arguing that it's a 6 combustion chamber engine to repel the 2 stroke arguments. Make up you mind, pick one and stick to it. So then it's a 3.9 litre Wankel engine and hence Mazda lie when they say it’s a 1.3 litre rotary. Or are you going to argue that “Wankel” and “rotary” aren't synonymous? The I’m not pretending, I’m ignoring it, because its irrelevant. You left out 2 stroke for a start. And you tripled the torque, on what basis? What was their choice, “1.3 litre rotary engine of the year”? The important point here is even they admit Mazda lies when they claim 1.3 litres. And that CAMS are wrong with the 1.8 times (ie; 2.3 litres) capacity equivalency. Cheers Gary

I always thought this was a no brainer. If we spin the rotor once it fires 3 times, now that’s either a 3 sided piston or 3 combustion chambers. Take your pick, one or the other. The best thing is it doesn’t actually matter when measuring capacity, the important fact is it fires 3 times. Not once. The fact that it fires 3 times means we can’t count just 1 firing to measure the capacity. So forget the 3 sided piston versus 3 combustion chamber argument, it’s irrelevant when discussing capacity. Cheers Gary.

But it can, and it has. There is nothing different in measuring the capacity of a rotary engine. It pumps and how much it pumps can easily and quickly be measured. The only question is how many degrees and/or rotations do we include in that measurement. Mazda say 1/3rd (1.3 litres for a 13B), but there is no basis for that. Lots of people say 2/3rds (2.6 litres for a 13B) based on eccentric shaft revolutions. I say 3/3rd (3.9 litres for a 13B), based on rotor revolutions. There is no doubt that 1.3 is wrong, there is an argument for 2.6 but it's not as strong as the argument for 3.9. The argument for 2.6 (based on eccentric shaft revolutions) loses out as soon as the degrees of rotation of a 2 stroke and 4 stroke piston engine are compared. There are no new dimensions in a rotary engine, it's a 3 dimensional object and a such can be measured by normal 3 dimensional mathematics. Sure it's an unusual shape but that's irrelevant. Cheers Gary

A 2 stroke piston engine also performs the Otto cycle. So is it one rotor and one combusion chamber or 3 combustion chambers? If it's one rotor and one combustion chamber then it's a 2 stroke because it does all 4 processes of the Otto cycle in one rotation (orbit if you prefer) just like a 2 stroke piston engine. If it 3 faces then face isn't a cycle, each of the 3 faces goes through the 4 Otto cycle processes, some of them simultaneously. While one face is compressing, another face is inletting, just like a 2 stroke psiton engine. While one face is inletting another face is exhausting, just like a 2 stroke piston engine. No they don't, to be a 3.9 litre we have to count the 3 faces of the rotor to determin the capacity. If we count the 3 faces then the 2 stroke simultaneous processing can't be ignored. We are discussion capacity, rpm and stroke/cycle type. The problem with using power and torque is efficiency, and rotaries are very inefficient in comparison with modern piston engines. So what, more relevant is that it fires air/fuel mixture 6 times per revolution of its 2 rotors. Which I see you get to in the next paragraph. Doesn't that depend on how many cylinders the 2.6 litre 4 stroke has? You realy only have 2 choices, it's either a 2 cylinder or a 6 cylinder depending on whether you claim 2 combusion chambers in a rotary or 6. If you are assuming a 2 cylinder 2.6 litre 4 stroke, then it fires 1 time per crank revolution. If you are assuming a 6 cylinder 2.6 litre 4 stroke, then it fires 3 times per crank revolution. As you said 1 or 3 doesn't = 2. Doesn't that depend on how many cylinders the 1.3 litre 2 stroke has? Once again you realy only have 2 choices, it's either a 2 cylinder or a 6 cylinder depending on whether you claim 2 combusion chambers in a rotary or 6. If you are assuming a 2 cylinder 1.3 litre 2 stroke, then it fires 2 times per crank revolution. If you are assuming a 6 cylinder 1.3 litre 2 stroke, then it fires 6 times per crank revolution. Let me guess, you choose 2 cylinder 1.3 litre 2 stroke. Then you're stuck with that 2 stroke problem again. Obviously 6 doesn't = 2 OK, you got me on this one, what's a 6 stroke? Would that be 6 combustions? In which case yes, I agree. But if you mean 1.5 times the 4 Otto cycle processes then I don't agree. Because is see no basis for 1.5 times anything. Cheers Gary

Not sure yet, I do know I prefer your never say die attitude. Bias, maybe not. But I'm not convinced that you aren't a victim of Mazda's marketing spin, an innocent victim maybe. As you stated, it's an Otto cycle engine and so we should measure it's capacity the same as we measure every other style of Otto cycle engine. In no other Otto Cycle engine are the crankshaft revolutions used to determin it's capacity, so I fail to see any reason for making an exception by using eccentric shaft revolutions for one Otto Cycle engine only. Each one in it's turn. Cheers Gary

Please do some research, a combustion engine is by definition an air pump, it sucks air in, it compresses it and then it pumps it out. Cheers Gary

Hence why it's a rotating combusion chamber, by George I think he got it. Cheers Gary

Sorry, I apologise in advance for jumping in here; But a rotary oil pump does, and a rotary water pump and a rotary fuel pump and a rotary air compressor and 50 other rotary pumps. They all measure their pumping capacity the same way, by how much they pump in one revolution (orbit if you prefer) of their pumping medium. The fact is only one rotary pump doesn't measure it's capacity that way, the Mazda one. No not realy, there are simply a few rotary huggers that won't admit to the truth no matter how many times and different ways we explain the logic consistency and factuality of it. I actualy think quite a few have changed their mind. Maybe not on all points, but on some, most definitely. Having gone into battle with blind rotary huggers for many years, this is not so painful at all. Cheers Gary

2 strokes, one up and one down Think Otto cycle, after all it's a combustion engine. It a 4 part cycle, a 4 stroke/cycle engine does each of the 4 individually. Whereas a 2 stroke/cycle engine doesn't, it combines parts of the cycle, it does them simultaneously. Just like a rotary. So is it a one cycle because of one revolution of the rotor? Or because of one cycle of the eccentric shaft? Be careful, if you say it's one cycle of the rotor then you admit the rpm lie and the capacity lie, but support the argument on cycles. If you say it's one cycle of the eccentic shaft then you admit the capacity lie and the 2 stroke/cycle, but support the rpm lie. Your choice. Cheers Gary

We have domne this before, how many 2 stroke/cycle charateristics do you want? Inlets and exhausts at the same time Fires every rotation/orbit/cycle of each combustion face of the rotor Inlets every rotation/orbit/cycle of each combustion face of the rotor Exhaust every rotation/orbit/cycle of each combustion face of the rotor Has no valves, the rotor opens and closes the inlet and exhaust ports Oil in the petrol There isn't one thing that the rotor does that is a unique 4 stroke characteristic. Why not, we do it with a 2 stroke piston engine. Even that doesn't work, because a rotor has 3 sides and a 2 stroke piston only 2. So we would have to look at 2/3rds. Exactly, that's why we don't count crankshaft revoltions in a piston engine, but you want to count eccentric shaft revolutions in a rotary engine. You see your problem? Every rotary argument you raise has consequences elsewhere in the package of Mazda lies. You can't be correct with 1 without killing the other 2 arguments Cheers Gary

No, but in a roary engine the majority of the combustion chamber is the rotor. In a piston engine the minority of the combustion chamber is the piston Not always the case though, in a diesel engine often they have a flat head with the combusion chamber (bowl) in the piston. So a rotary is not unique in having a moving combustion chamber. Irrelevant, the piston crown is involved in inlet, compression and exhaust, but we still include it in the term combustion chamber. Cheers Gary

Same as a 2 stroke piston engine, one cycle of the piston. A 4 stroke piston engine takes 2 cycles of the piston. Cheers Gary