Sydneykid

The only reason 4AGZE OE pistons are used is because they are cheap, new and used. They are 81 mm bore and the early ones have 18 mm gudgeons, the later ones are 20 mm, that's gives what is commonly known as an RB23 (2,280 cc's). The RB20 block will take more than 81 mm and the RB26 rods have 20 mm gudgeons, the usual route when using early pistons is to sleave the little ends down to 18mm. So if you are going to use an aftermarket forged piston, then you would be much better of buying something with an 82 mm bore and a 20 mm gudgeon. That will give you an an extra 56 cc's (2,336cc's) for no extra cost. ACL make a Race Series 4AGZE pistons that is 1 mm oversize (82 mm) with the later (20mm) gudgeon the part is 4MKRY9634. Last time I checked they were very reasonably priced, we use them in the 7F bottom end (1,807 cc's) and 20 valve top end race engines. Cheers Gary

An SR20 conrod is, what, 136 mm and say the stroke is 85 mm that's 1.60 to 1, which is not so bad, only slightly worse than an RB26 standard. It's the 1.4 of the OS Giken RB30 that would worry me. Cheers Gary

I have found that if I put that cylinder at TDC, the valve (exhaust or inlet) doesn't drop far enough so that you can't retrieve it. A bent screwdriver blade does an OK job of compressing standard valve springs. Especailly when they most commonly have only 40 lbs on the seat. Cheers Gary

I am not at my reference PC to check until tomorrow morning, but my guess would be that the step in the bush (where the bearing used to sit) is an issue. I suspect that we will find it easier to find a bush if you say wrapped 12 mm wide x 2mm thick alloy around the bush end to consume the space. Then the bush itself would be a straight 36 mm. Cheers Gary

Advanced driving school time Daniel. In the interim my often published swaybar set up list I usually start of with the front bar on full soft and the rear on the middle setting. If it oversteers too much, then I move the front bar to the middle setting If it still oversteers too much, then I back the rear bar off to the softest setting If it still oversteers too much, then I move the front bar to the highest setting If it still oversteers too much, then you might need some more rear camber and/or the HICAS is still working (get rid of it) and/or the rear subframe alignment kit needs to be set to maximum traction (squat) I usually start of with the front bar on full soft and the rear on the middle setting. If it understeers too much, then I move the rear bar to the highest setting If it still understeers too much then you don't have enough caster/camber on the front Cheers gary

RB34 Bore around 87 mm Stroke around 94 mm Rod stroke ratio around 1.62 RB30 Rod stroke ratio around 1.77 RB26 Rod stroke ratio around 1.63 RB20 (for Roy) Rod stroke ratio around 1.77 OS Giken RB30 Rod stroke ratio around 1.40 The general consensus amongst the top level US engine builders is a rod stroke ratio around 1.75 is the ideal. Not everyone agrees, but the sound geometric logic behind it has majority support. There is plenty of reading on the subject, so you can make your own judgement. There are some irrefutable rules however. If you increase stroke, you increase piston velocity and acceleration. If you reduce rod length, you increase piston velocity and acceleration. So the RB30 route of increasing the stroke (over an RB26) AND increasing rod length (over an RB26) results in lower G forces on the piston and rod than the OS Giken method of increasing stroke (over an RB26) whilst maintaining the same rod length (as an RB26). There is no debate on this, it's a fact of the geometry. In summary, if 2 equally skillful engine builders using the same quality components, build 2 engines. One with a rod stroke ratio of 1.77 and the other with a rod stroke ratio of 1.40. The engine with the rod stroke ratio of 1.77 WILL place lower G forces on the pistons and rods than the engine with the 1.40 ratio. Hence why engine wear is increased, as is the risk of rod failure. Cheers Gary

In simple terms, suspension bush quality polyurethane is a multi part mix, climate controlled environment, exact quantities, accurate baking oven for controlled temperature and time. The formulas for different duros (hardness) are proprietory. I have made bushes in the past from a slug of polyurethane that is lathed like wood, you "cut" it, you do not "machine" it like metal. I haven't had to do that for years, there are so many sizes and shapes available I simply haven't found it necessary to make them. If you want to send me the measurements of what it is you require, I have the dimension data from all of the bush manufacturers, most times I can find something that will do the job. Cheers Gary

The RB30 rod stroke ratio is higher (numerically) than the RB26 rod stroke ratio, so the side load wear (bore and piston) is demonstrably less. Hence the parasitic losses are lower so the engine produces more torque for the same combustion pressure. In addition the superior rod stroke ratio (which is close to what many engineers consider the ideal of 1.75 to 1) in itself results is superior transfer of power to the crankshaft as the rod angle during combustion is less. There is a valid argument about the piston speed being higher in an RB30, but these days the piston ring quality overrules most of that objection. This inferior rod stroke ratio is one of my objections to the RB29 concept, as it is with the OS Giken RB30. Cheers Gary

I don't know which thread to respond in, so this is a quote from the other one.

I can't see what your problem is. The braided kit only replaces the 2 rubber hoses, the standard steel hoses remain. On the front, the block bolts to the upright. One braided hose (from memory the longer one) goes from the block to the inner guard where it joins the steel tube at the right angle bracket on the inner guard. The other braided hose (from memory the shorter one) goes from the block to the joint for the steel tube that goes to the calliper. On the rear, the block end of the braided hose bolts to the steel hose that goes to the calliper. The other end of the braided hose joins the steel tube at the right angle bracket on the inner guard . Cheers Gary

This is the usual smaller capacity versus larger capacity argument that occurs with any engine combination. The difference here is that the larger capacity engine doesn't weigh a meaningful amount more than the smaller capacity engine, so the advantage is always with the larger capacity engine. Since BHP is simply torque x rpm / 5250, at any given rpm (all things being equal) the larger capacity engine will always generate more torque and hence more horsepower. The otherside is the larger capacity engine will make the same horsepower at lower rpm, which results in lower mainteneance costs and frequently a less costly build. Cheers Gary

Not unusual, over 60% of the weight is on the front wheels and the weight transfer to the front under braking is a further 25% to 30% depending on spring and shock rates. Cheers Gary

The 4wd (GTR & GTS4) front shocks are shorter than the 2wd (GTS & GTST) to fit the front drive shafts. If you use the 4wd shocks you may fit it impossible to get the car up to legal height, if that is ever necessary. Cheers Gary

In my opinion and based on my experience, Buddy Club are not that great a kit, certainly not good enough for you to be overly concerned with keeping them. My recommendation would be to sell them and buy something decent. Cheers Gary

Here's the problem, they may be OK when compared to the other (mediocre) shocks used in Japan. But when you look on the world stage you find zero Jap suspension, anywhere. Even the Civics, Lexuss & Integras that race in BTCC have European shocks. Ditto the Subarus, Mitsubishis and Suzukis that race in the WRC, they don't have Japanese shocks. When Nissan needed a superior shock for the R35 who did they turn to? Bilstein. Ditto TRD for the Supras, Subaru for the STi's etc. When the better Japanese workshops want to do it properly, even they chose to go outside Japan; The M Speed R34GTR (check it out in HPI #87) uses Dymamic, made in the Europe The Nagisa Auto R34GTR (HPI #85) uses Quantum, made in Europe The Garage Ito/Pro Stock racing R34GTR (HP#86) also uses Quantum Aragosta are a medium (at best) fish in a small pond, stick them in the ocean and they are lost. Cheers Gary

Personally I would never let a Trust turbo anywhere near any of my cars when they are plain bearing and oil cooled. We do far too much circuit work for them to be even considered. Cheers Gary

Also done x 2 Cheers Gary

Depends on the spring rates, typically the Yamahas have rediculously high spring rates and I would recommend that they be changed. Typically the Tein monoflex only have high (not rediculously high) spring rates and so you might get away with not changing them. The cost of changing spring rates may make the Yamahas not such good value for money. Cheers Gary

There is no difference in rear shock length between R32GTST, R32GTR and R32GTS4. Obviously the front shocks for the 4wd's are shorter than the 2wd's. I am now up to 3 x R32GTST's that have R32GTS4 rear cradles, identified by the rear swaybar differwnces. None of them have GTS4 style rear uprights (hubs) though, all have R32GTST style. Cheers Gary

The R33GTST Group Buy split dump fitted perfectly on mine, which has a Magic cat and a modified Nismo R32GTR 3" exhaust. I ended up using that particular split dump on the R33GTST and the Stagea now has a Performance Metalcraft hand fabricated (work of art) split dump on it that was originally on the R32GTST. More to the point; A T04E, doesn't fit straight on, especially with an external wastegate. And if it did it would give you a huge power difference. Of course there is no definitive answer, everybody has different requirements and tastes. In my case doubling the standard power output at the wheels via a highly responsive GCG ball bearing high flowed RB20DET turbo was the perfect choice. In Brad's case, quadrupling the power output via a T04Z suited his requirements. Take a proper look at what everybody is running and why they chose it and I bet you will find a combination that suites your requirements. Cheers Gary

Sorry I kept you waiting for 2 days for a response, especially one that you knew was coming; What so special about Stagea specific track springs and shocks? Let's break it down to the individual components ; Eibach make proper race quality coil springs in ID's from 50 mm to 75 mm, in rate increments of 25lbs/inch from 100 lbs/inch to over 3,000 lbs/inch. So you simply select the appropriate rate from that range, nothing Stagea specific there. The top and bottom spring seats and the other coil over hardware are generic parts and a number of manufacturers (Bilstein, Koni, Eibach etc) have a range to suite the chosen spring diameters. Nothing Stagea specific there either. The front shock body is dimensionally the same as R32/33/34 GTR, you simply select the valving to suite the spring rates you have chosen. Making sure it has a range of adjustment that covers all possible rate changes. Keeping in mind that the front swaybar is a spring as well and so it's rate has to be included in the damping requirement. Nothing Stagea specific in any of that. The rear shock body is dimensionally the same as R33 GTST or R33GTR/R34GTT/R34GTR depending on which upright (hub) you are running. Once again you simply select the valving and adjustment to suite the range of spring rates you have chosen. As with the front, the rear swaybar rate has to be included in the damping requirement. Nothing Stagea specific in any of that either. Keeping all of the above in mind, I can't see any need to suffer with an unsophisticated overpriced spring/shock combo as none of it is Stagea specific. Cheers Gary

Running it in 4WD wouldn't take any extra power, only dyno power is affected, not in the real world. Let's face it, the front wheels have to be rotated, whether that is done directly by 4WD or indirectly by the road. So 4WD doesn't really affect how much horsepower it takes to make the car accelerate down the track. The most power difference I have seen in a Skyline between 2WD and 4WD on the same dyno is ~25 hp, of which a goodly proportion would be turning the front wheels and the front dyno rollers. What's left is hardly significant, especially in Brad's case. Something to think about. Cheers Gary

Pictures are useless, measure it, centre of wheel to guard. This is what is usually needed for each height increment: Standard (new) height is 390 mm front and 380 mm 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

It depends on what you want, if you need a drive in drive out solution, then it's not too bad, albeit excessively priced in comparison to what the same kits sells for in the US. Since I am going to be doing the installation and tuning myself I don't need that. Cheers Gary

IMHO, the IHI 1420's are a little small, similar to GTSS's, around 260 bhp each. Which for a properly tuned 3.5 litre engine means they would be developing boost well below 2,000 rpm. For standard internals I am not sure I want that boost and, hence torque, so low in the rpm range. Other than that the PE kits looks OK. Cheers Gary