Sydneykid

Why? You planning on running into one to test the relative (32 vs 35) strength At least they have a ball joint on the top of the front uprights, no bush wear problem there. How much caster do you want? Just pull the bottom frontwards and the top rearwards, no loss of drive shaft angle. Big advantage. Cheers Gary

I will try and treat bkc as if he is serious, it's tough but someone has to do it; 1. 3.8 litres is bigger than 2.6 litre, if you go to 2.8 litres I will go to 4.0 litres No matter what you do I will always have a 1.2 litre advantage. There is no substitute for cubic capacity. 2. Because of the extra capacity I can run bigger turbo/turbos for the same power at lower rpm. This means lower stress levels 3. Or I can run bigger turbo/turbos at the same rpm and make more power. 4. If I choose #2 or #3 I will have a wider power band, that means less gearchanges to get to the same speed. 4. A V6 does not have a harmonic problem like an inline 6, sure you can overcome it partially with a trick harmonic balancer and even over balancing. But at the end of the day the harmonics will beat you. Broken oil pumps on RB26's are a prime example of that. 5. The alloy blcok sheds heat better than the cast iron block, this means higher thermal efficiency. For the same calorific value going in (fuel) it will make more kinetic energy out (horsepower). 6. The effect of #5 is more than just power, it also effects the radiator sizing. You can run a smaller radiator as there is less heat transferred into the water jacket. A smaller radiator means less aerodynamic drag, so for the same power it would be faster (top speed and accelleration). 7. For some people emissions are important, for every horsepower the V35 makes the RB26 would have produced 1.7 times as much polution. 8. The inline 6 has a long run from the water pump to the #6 cylinder, this means temperature differentials along the block. We battle that everytime with high power RB's. The V6 has duel water feed from the pump, so no temperature differential, hence much simpler tuning. 9. The inline 6 length also exacerbates the crank shaft whip, it is long and no matter what you make it out of, it gets some form of whip. And that costs horsepower. Obviously the V6 crank is much shorter and has opposing conrod bearing loads, ie; no whip. 10. The same length issue affect the camshafts, the head is long, has differential heating along it length (refer #8) and hence the cam bearings induce loadings into the rotating camshafts. How many broken RB cams have you seen? That should do for a start, let's see how the English translater works on that. Cheers Gary

I haven't weighed the 35GTR stuff yet, obviously I have weighed the 32GTR stuff plenty of times. But I have weighed the V35 stuff and it is way lighter than the 34GTT, 33GTST and 32GTS stuff. Based on what the V35 stuff weighs I would say the 35GTR will have a similar advantage. There is some heavy stuff in a 32GTR, for a starter those front uprights are damn heavy. The alloy centres on the 35GTR rotors bring the weight down more than enough to compensate for the extra diameter, especially when you consider the actual pad swept radii. So my guess would be a lower unsprung in total , but I have no doubt that the ratio of sprung to unsprung is far more favourable. Cheers Gary

Hi Ryan, the instructions in the kit have more detail than the book (Performance Electronics for Cars). The book doesn't have the IC marking for a start and the instructions do. You won't damage the IC's if you put them in the wrong way around, you will just get strange results when you try and do the testing. The big white resistor is used when testing the voltage, I didn't use it as I have a variable voltage power supply. Cheers Gary

Hi Ryan, yep Andrew is a good guy, knows his stuff, I try and catch up whenever I am in Melbourne with the race team. The rear camber at 1.0 negative is fine, the recommend range for a road car is 0.75 to 1.25. Anymore than 1.25 and you end up with too much negative when you have rear seat passengers and/or fill up the load space or inm my case tow one of the race cars. On my own Stagea I have the front bar on the middle setting and the rear bar on full hard. It hasn't got great tyres on it because it does so many k's and wears them out fast. It has no nervousness or high speed oversteer, which are signs of too much rear anti roll, so I am never concerend with having the rear bar up so high. I currently have more front toe out than usual in an attempt to overcome some of the low speed understeer, which it doesn't have on good tyres. But it is wearing the inside so I will have to pull some toe out of it. Cheers Gary

A touch of realism anyone? The standard spring rates are around 3 kg/mm. Do you really think that Nissan got it 400% wrong? I don't think so. Those sorts of spring rates (10/10 or 12/10) are more than what we run in a V8Supercar, on slicks on the best track surfaces in the country. A road tyre is simply not designed to handle that sort of spring rate. Even an R type tyre doesn't like much over 7kg/mm. To control those sorts of spring rates, the shock absorbers have to have BIG rebound (extension) valving, if they don't, the spring will simply oscillate after every bump, making the next bump even bigger. But it is actually even worse than that, the huge rebound valving stops the wheel dropping back down again after it has absorbed the last bump, so the tyre sits above the road surface, for some time. If you truly think that you car handles well on those sorts of spring rates, then you are sadly mistaken. You will find out, when it is wet and it won't stop, when the road has slight ripples and it won't accelerate, when there is a bump mid corner and it won't hold the line. Or you will go to a track day and a guy with standard springs will kick your ass. Or you will go to the drags and a stock standard car will beat you by 20 feet to the 60 foot line. Or you will try and drag off a taxi and he will walk away while you wheelspin across the intersection. Oh wait, there is more. Since the chassis wasn't designed for those sorts of springs rate you will soon find rattles appearing from all over the place, the electronics will have intermittent problems, the CD player might even skip a few tracks, cracks will start to appear around the spring mounts, globes will blow more regularly, suspension bushes will wear out at an alarming rate and you may even find some new cracks in the windscreen. But hey, what would I know? Cheers Gary

You know what I am going to say................. Increase the corner speed and you won't have to brake as hard :laughing-smiley-014: :laughing-smiley-014: Cheers Gary

Thanks There is a few (phew) more to go Yep, usually the end of October, early November. Next year is Tuesday, November 4 to Friday, November 7, 2008 The SEMA show is trade only, so make sure you register well before hand. You can't just turn up. www.semashow.com Nope Cheers Gary

It is hardly a new idea. For example Alfas had the transaxle, front engine combo in 1978. Never had a problem, well not with the tailshaft anyway. Cheers Gary

My 20 cents; Bet the 35 doesn't have the same rediculous dynamic camber change angles that the 32 has Bet the 35 doesn't have the same bump steer that the 32 has Bet the 35 doesn't have the excessive rear squat that the 32 has Bet the standard 35 shocks are a damn site better than the crap the 32 had The lower unsprung weight of the 35 would make it far superior in traction, for braking, for accelerating and for cornering We all know that the 35 is damn site quieter inside, the db ratings are impressive, 89 32's are tiring to drive long distances The 1989 32 had pretty average brakes for its weight The ABS was way slow and did not have the programming for wet and dirty roads Let's face it, HICAS was a pretty terrible idea The 32 ATTESA is very slow to activate, even compared to a 33 and a 34, so a 35 must be heaps better than a 32 I am not a fan of V6's, they just don't have the song of a straight 6, but that 35 engine is a gem (for a V6) I am looking forward to not having to rev a standard GTR to 4,500 rpm before anything meaningfull happens On an equivalent dollar for dollar basis, the 35 is actually less than half the cost of a 32. Add it all up and the 35 is a good couple of generations better in every way than a 32. But (there is always a but) the 32 was a very big step over every Nissan that went before it. I believe that is the case because it was designed for Group A racing, it was specifically engineered to beat the best that the other car manufacturers could come up with. And it sure as hell did that, in spades. So the answer from my perspective is that the 32 was definitely a bigger step, but the 35 is much better car at a truely amazing price. Cheers Gary

Try the Group Buy, over 140 satisfied Skyliners. Cheers Gary

I thought you r were talking about the rear arms, that's the picture with the damaged bush. The rear arms don't have a lip on the bush. The only R32 arms with lips are the front uppers, no pressing required there. I just use an air chisel, takes a few seconds per bush. Put the arm in the vice and gradually work the air chisel in between the bush lip and the arm. Work around the lip and gradually increase the angle on the chisel. If don't already have an air chisel, you can buy one for peanuts from SupaChepa, AutoBarn, AutoOne, AutoPro etc, very useful tool. Cheers Gary

The Trust 350Z has a nice twin turbo kit for the twin throttle body engines;

This was the only R32, R33 or R34 that I saw this year;

My personal favourite Nissan; With one of these kits, a pair of GTRS's. I like the thought of it, maybe mid next year, I will need a new daily driver by then;

Hi Ryan, the big white resister doesn't go anywhere, it is for testing the voltages. How to test them is in the instructions. The 2 x IC's are marked with white paint, the instructions tell you where they go. It's in the fine print, but it is there. Cheers Gary

Hi Ryan, let's work through the issues one by one; I am not sure what you mean by this. The bushes rotate around the crush tubes, the crush tubes prevent overtightening of the bushes, so there is no possibility of binding. You would have to go below the recommend height (345 mm rear) for the lower spring seat positioning to be an issue. If you do go to an aftermarket spring please be carefull in your choices as nothing I have found off the shelf suites the Stagea's balance. That includes Nismo. Have a look at your toe and camber settings on the rear, I have tried all the combinations of bar setting and I have never ever felt any nervousness in the rear. Try a little toe in (2 mm each side) if you feel the necessity, but I would be surprised if you do You haven't mentioned what sized bars you have , but I assume they are the sizes as recommended in the Group Buy. Fitting the rear 24 mm bar has increased the rear roll stiffness by over 100%, that is the important end with a Stagea (waggon, high CoG + low roll centre = big roll couple). The front roll stiffness is around a 50% increase, any more than that and we end up with a tad too much understeer. With that amount of roll stiffness increase, I am not sure how you can describe it as "sloppy". I have been fitting upgraded swaybars to my own cars for over 30 years, I have yet to find one single car that hasn't benefitted from their fitment. In a customer car sense, I have only ever had one car that sufferd when upgraded bars were fitted and it had the hardest tyres I have ever seen. Put a decent tyre on it and it was fine. So, you are either feeling for something that isn't there, perhaps expecting too much of reduction in roll or there is something wrong in the product selection or their fitment. There are over 30 Stagea running around with the Group Buy kits fitted to them and I have had nothing but positive feed back. Even Duncan (who races an R32GTR) was pleasantly surprised at how well his Stagea handled the SAU track day at Wakefield Park. I am always willing to help, so feel free to contact me anytime. Cheers Gary

As a few guys may be aware I went to the east coast of the US for 5 weeks and dropped in at the SEMA show in Las Vegas on the way back. For those that may not be aware, the annual SEMA do in Las Vegas show is the biggest automotive aftermarket show anywhere in the world. Over 25,000 exhibitors means that it is impossible to see everything in the 4 days that the show is open for, you just hit your personal highlights. I had penty of those, considering that I brought back over 12kgs of brochures and catalogues. Over the next few days I will attempt to load up some of the 300 or so pictures I took at SEMA and add a few details on my observances. This being the SAU forum, they will be mostly Nissan related with an emphasis on the new stuff that I saw, some of it for the first time. Hope you find it interesting. Cheers

Why?

Amen to that If the ABS isn't engaging then what difference does it make? I'll be surprised Inappropriate brake bias, did you chenge both front and rear and the master cylinder and the ABS actuator?. Yep, that would be my guess. Cheers

You got it, the rear is too short, way too short. There are plenty of threads on this, pictures too, have you tried a search? Cheers

You need a pressing tool and a receiver tool. The old standard bush your are pressing out needs a tool slightly smaller in OD to push it out. You need a receiver tool with a ID slightly larger then the bush to rest the arm on while you press it and to cath the old bush while it is being pressed out. You can fit the new polyurethane bushes by hand, gease them up and they slip in. You may need to press the crush tubes in though. Cheers