Sydneykid

Bilsteins are in stock, allow 1-2 days for circlip grooving Stabiliser bars 3-4 working days, as we don't carry stock of the unique Group Buy bars Delivery is via Toll Priority and usually takes 1-2 working days to most places in Australia, add 1-2 days for WA, TAS and NT cheers

Excellent, a Stagea duel (dual) cheers

Kinda..........let me try again.... The auto ECU tells the engine ECU that it is about to change gear, so the engine ECU retards/cuts the ignition according to a map, using whole pile of parameters (throttle position, AFM voltage, engine rpm, road speed, what gear etc etc) Once the gear change has happened the auto ECU tells the engine ECU, so the engine ECU stops retarding/cutting the ignition and resumes "normal" mapping. The fact that the auto ECU is maybe changing gear at the wrong time is irrelevant to the igntion retard/cut, ie; it still does it while the gearchange is happening. Hence it smooths the gearchange and takes the torque loading off the bands/clutch packs. So using a programable auto ECU will make the gearchanges happen at the right time (if you get the mapping right), but it won't fix the lack of retard/cut, that is the engine ECU's responsibility. The problem (as I see it) is that no matter what you do to the gearchange take up, the fact is without the engine ECU retarding/cutting the ignition, you will still get FULL TORQUE loadings for as long at that take up takes. Simplistically there are only 2 gearchange (up or down) parameters that you can vary, speed and firmness; 1. If you shorten the take up then you get harsh gear changes. If you lengthen the take up, then you get burn out of the clutchpacks and/or bands. 2. If you make the take up firmer, then you get harsh gear changes. If you soften the take up, then you get burn out of the clutchpacks and/or bands. The only true solution is to remove/lessen the torque loading while the gearchange is happening. Maybe an other example, in some Toyotas the ignition cut/retard is done by the gearbox ECU. All the mapping (and code) for cut and retard lives in the gearbox ECU programming. That's why you can buy Power FC's for auto Toyotas. For them APEXI didn't need to write thouands of lines of cut/retard code into the engine ECU (Power FC). Because of Nissan's system, they would have to do that (at great programming expense) for Nissan Power FC's. cheers

R34GTT top feed injector on the left, R33GTST side feed injector in the middle and R32/33/34GTR and R32GTST top feed injector on the right. cheers PS; the search button is your best friend, I seriously doubt that you will be able to think of a question that hasn't already been answered about Skylines on SAU.

I will go with what Michael and Fitz have said. Dry sumping is good, but it COSTS and requires some knowledge and considerable fabrication skills. I have been involved in several dry sump set ups for GTR's over the years, due to the design of the 4wd sump, they really need it. But not so much so in a 2wd application. For example, in my own R32GTST I run a High Energy 8 litre wet sump on the RB31DET and I have never had a problem with oil surge. I would like to comment on this; That doesn't sound like oil surge to me, more like you haven't sufficiently limited the amount of oil getting to the cylinder head and/or improved the oil return to the sump. On the straights, the high rpm is pumping too much oil upwards and it isn't returning to the sump fast enough, this lack of oil in the sump manifests itself under brakes. That is where I would start looking, limit the flow and improve the return. cheers

The guys have pretty well covered it, I would add that I beam rods are better at taking impact than H beam. Any slight nick in an H beam rod and it's a throw away. BTW, RB cranks are double nitrided standard, so shot simply bounces off, hence peening is a waste of time. As of course is nitriding them again. Check the straightness, lightly linish the bearing surfaces, balance it and move on. cheers

The only price change has been the front camber kits, which came down in price. Whiteline (now Redranger) have had a couple of price rises since the Group Buy kits were introduced, but I have been able to keep the Group Buy prices the same. Compare them with the S13/14/15 kits and you can see the differences. If I go back now and ask for a new price list I am sure the prices will reflect those increases. So I have been keeping quiet, but if you want me to ask I can ............ A front stut brace works very well because the upper control arms are bolted to the chassis (strut towers). Since the front strut brace joins the strut towers, it is noticeably effective in reducing the unwanted movement of the inner mounting of the upper control arm. This is not the case with the rear, as the upper control arms are bolted to the subframe, not the chassis. So adding a strut brace to the chassis doesn't do a lot. Particularly in R33/34's, where the rear stut tops are direclty under the parcel shelf, which in itself acts like a brace. In S13's and R32's, a rear strut is slightly more effective, as the stut tops are located at the inner wheel arches. Plus they are getting on a bit now and the chassis are not as rigid as they once were. cheers

PM sent cheers

Like all springs , they will settle a little bit, so make sure you check the heights after 1,000 k's or so. cheers

Sorry, Eibach don't make Skyline coils. Don't be concerned with any perceived technical difference though, the Whiteline coils in the Group Buy are cold wound on a hydraulic winding machine, the same as Eibach. No extra charge in the Road and Track kit for purple, in fact they are a little bit cheaper. Sorry for the delay in responding to PM's, the S13/14/15 guys need lots of information and in each PM they have heaps of questions. cheers

Yep, credit card is OK, no Diners or Amex though, they charge toooooo much. cheers

PSC style stuff has been around for a while. MV Autos in Adelaide even makes a simple one than fully manualises the shifts in an auto. The US made ones I have seen are programable auto gearbox controllers, they do a great job of telling the auto when to change gear. Very useful in applications where the standard gearbox ECU is usuitable. For our purposes I don't see them as a solution, as they have no control over ignition, or any other engine parameter. They take inputs from the engine (throttle position, engine rpm etc) as well as road speed, and some even have grade logic. But their control outputs are to the gearbox only. You can output signals for an electronic speedo and things like shift position lights on the dash, but they aren't control outputs as such. cheers

The only Nissan front rotor I have seen with 49 mm height is the S13, they are 280 mm diameter however. cheers

My understanding of the EManage Ultimate is that (like the FCon) it has provision for high rpm WOT ignition retard on gearchange. Somewhat like the RB25DET (non Neo) VVT, it is a simple "above one point" change. Basically you input; 1. over 5,000 rpm and at WOT, retard the ignition 10 degrees on the upchange 2. over 5,000 rpm at WOT on the down change, retard the ignition 12 degrees That's it, unlike the standard ECU, the retard is not infinitely variable, not load sensing, not mapped (2 dimensionally or 3 dimensionally). This would give some increase in protection for the gearbox from high power loading on the gearchanges, but it does nothing for the smoothness of the shift (or protection) for anything other than WOT gearchanges. It is also questionable whether the change over (retard vs not retard) should be at maximum torque or maximum horsepower. The answer is that the requirements are very different for those circumstances. If/when the Ultimate has mapped retard, like the normal ignition map, with axis for RPM and load then it would/will be a viable alternative. Until then it offers slightly more gearbox protection at WOT than a Power FC (or any other stand alone ECU), that’s about it. The real question here is what are we chasing with 200+ 4wkw automatic S1 Stageas? Last time I added it up, the total cost far exceeds the change over price to an S2 manual. Which has the stronger drive train, better engine, larger brakes etc etc. My 20 cents worth; 190 rwkw at 12 psi is pretty damn impressive, I don’t think I could better that with a Power FC in an auto. Keep in mind that you are loosing at least 10 rwkw maybe as much as 15 rwkw through the auto. I changed the cat (ceramic high flow to metallic high flow) and had to retune the Power FC in the R33GTST. An SAFC/SITC combo is not alone in the sort of retuning requirement. 215 rwkw at 16 psi is equally as impressive, that would be ~230 rwkw in a R33GTST with a manual. Not many exceed that with your mods, even using a Power FC. My Stagea, same driver, same roads, same traffic uses similar fuel on a daily basis as the R33GTST manual (with Power FC) which has around 15 rwkw more. There wouldn’t be $3 in it on weekly basis. Which for a 4wd auto weighing 300 kgs more, is quite satisfactory IMHO. The lesson I have learnt is not to expect the unreasonable and to be realistic in my targets. cheers

The dimensions I was given for the front rotors for an S2 Stagea were off an RS4. I have fitted the R33GTST rotors to an S2 RS4 and they fit perfectly (after machining down the 6 mm of course). So I can only assume that the RS-V is different. The way to confirm this is to measure the standard RS-V rotors. These are the dimensions of the RS4 front rotor (R33GTST in brackets); OD = 290 mm (296 mm) New height = 54 mm (54 mm) New rotor thickness = 28 mm (30 mm) Minimum thickness = 26 mm (28 mm) Centre hole ID= 68 mm (68 mm) Studs = 5 (5) Obviously the dimension in question is the height (ie; 54 mm). It is worth mention that ALL R32's, R33's, R34's (including Brembo equipped ones) plus S14's and S15's come with front rotors of 54 mm height. There was sufficient room (with the pistons fully retracted in the callipers) to fit the Bendix brake padss, ie; the extra 1 mm of rotor thickness (each side), was not an issue. cheers

The dimensions I was given for the front rotors for an S2 Stagea were off an RS4. I have fitted the R33GTST rotors to an S2 RS4 and they fit perfectly (after machining down the 6 mm of course). So I can only assume that the RS-V is different. The way to confirm this is to measure the standard RS-V rotors. These are the dimensions of the RS4 front rotor (R33GTST in brackets); OD = 290 mm (296 mm) New height = 54 mm (54 mm) New rotor thickness = 28 mm (30 mm) Minimum thickness = 26 mm (28 mm) Centre hole ID= 68 mm (68 mm) Studs = 5 (5) Obviously the dimension in question is the height (ie; 54 mm). It is worth mention that ALL R32's, R33's, R34's (including Brembo equipped ones) plus S14's and S15's come with front rotors of 54 mm height. There was sufficient room (with the pistons fully retracted in the callipers) to fit the Bendix brake padss, ie; the extra 1 mm of rotor thickness (each side), was not an issue. cheers

With the change of date, I can now attend. Adam has asked me to bring along some Skyline suspension stuff to talk about, for you see, touch, feel and/or smell. I was wondering what you might want me bring and what to talk about? Springs perhaps, some shocks maybe, stabiliser bars, alignment products...........let me know what interests you and I will do my best to satisfy that interest. Should I bring a small whiteboard for some drawn explanations? Walk around a car or two and run through the components? cheers

Most Nismo coil overs are Bilsteins eg; Z tune. cheers

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread previously Tramlining is not usually caster or camber, it certainly isn't spring, shock or bar related. Wheel bearings are a good place to start, any play will result in noticeable steering wheel tugging over irregularities in the road surface. I notice that it has some toe out on the front (around 1mm each side), I would try removing that and see if you can feel any difference. If it makes a little bit of difference but not enough for you, then try some toe in, 1 or 2 mm should show a result if that is the issue. The KPI difference is interesting, as it is counter to the camber/caster readings. I would check the knuckle on the upright, just pop the cover off and make sure that the joint is tight. This is not a big thing, I doubt it is the issue, but worth checking anyway. cheers

The only thing that I can see that is different to the normal is "the castor rods are standard", I assume that means the bushes are standard as well. ALL GTR's have (need) more caster, which reduces the negative camber, so the upper arms have to be shorter than yours to achieve reasonable negative camber. If you haven't already added some caster, then that may remove the problem. cheers

As you know the top shock mounts on R32 rears are at the inner guard in the boot, on R33's they are up under the rear parcel shelf. Hence R33 springs and shocks are much longer than R32's. Knowing you, you will want a precise number, R33 shock body 440 mm versus R32 shock body 330 mm. I suppose you could use them and raise your car 110 mm.................. cheers

Rears are OK, fronts are not. cheers

GTR's handle best around 355 mm front and 345 mm rear (centre of wheel to guard), GTST's around 350 mm front and 340 mm rear. This gives around 10 mm of rake, that's nose down as measured at the sills, just behind the front wheel and just in front of the rear wheel. As for the reasoning behind that, I don't know how technical you want to go. The principle is to keep the roll couple (RC) somewhere close to standard while lowering the CoG (centre of gravity) and maintaining a reasonable CoR (roll centre). If you lower it too far, the CoR rapidly gets too low, sometimes below ground level. The CoG can't possibly go that low, so you end up with an enlarged RC. Without getting technically too deep, the problem becomes more complex with Skylines, as the front and rear CoR's each individually change dramatically with height, so you end up with disparate RC’s front and rear. This manifest itself as unpredictable understeer and/or oversteer, depending on roll, tyre slip angle plus power and steering input. Nasty things to drive, that bite. That’s handling covered (in simple terms), ride comfort is another issue. Basically you end up with insufficient travel to soak up bumps and the thing crashes into the bump stops, eventually wearing them out. With no bump stops to protect them, it then smashes the shocks into pulp and the chassis cracking starts to appear. Pretty simple this lowering stuff isn’t it? cheers

It is always a bit difficult to rate tapered wire coils, to be perfectly accurate you have to know the amount of taper over the full length of wire. Or test them on a spring rate tester. That's not very easy to DIY. The rates that are calculated are the lowest posssible (assuming maximum taper) and the highest possible (assuming the minimum taper). cheers

I get asked quite often how to tell if second hand shocks are OK. While it is not 100% perfect, you can do some easy checks, if any of these show a problem then its rebuild time. 1. The first job is to check for oil leaks around the top seals, on the shock body where the shaft goes through. Any oil (even a tiny bit) is bad news. 2. Next make sure that the shocks have equal gas pressure, take the springs off and compare the front pair with each other. Push them down equally and make sure that it takes the same amount of force to push them down. Any difference (even a tiny bit) is bad news. 3. Then make sure that they come up together at the same speed. Any difference (even a tiny bit) is bad news. 4. Do the same for the rear pair. 5. Lastly look at the shock shafts, if they are not perfectly shiny, the same all the length and all the way around, then that is real bad news. They must have no rust, no scratches and no visible wear marks. New shafts cost more than whole shocks. That's about it, if the shocks pass those tests then chances are they are OK, for now. cheers