Sydneykid

I sure as hell don't, but someone raised it (being chucked out of LM) as proof of rotary engine superiority, when in fact is was proof of cheating. No it's not, far from it in fact. There is no forced induction at work here, it's straight N/A capacity versus N/A capacity. Glad you agree. Not if it had to compete against other 3.9 litres engines. Irrelevant, as none of them are claiming 1.3 litres for a 3.9 litre engine and none of them are tripling their true rpm. Who says I like one more than the other? Not me, my points are simply cheating for 40 years about rotaries true capacity and lying about their rpm. Good vesus bad, never in my argument. Cheers Gary

Divide the spring rates by the movement and the leverage ratios and you get the effective spring rate at the tyre, which is all that matters. Cheers Gary

I know of 5 personally, 2 x R32GTR's, 1 X R32GTST and 1 x R33GTR. And I just put a set in the Evo X, but it's not a Skyline. Cheers Gary

True, but (there is always a but), Mazda have dug their own grave. By claiming 1.3 litres for a 13B they are automatically competing against 4 cylinder engines on capacity. Any decent inline 4 cylinder engine pisses all over a 13B for packaging, not to mention fuel economy. So the 13B loses out to the 4 cylinders every time. But (yes, another one) if they told the truth about 3.9 litres then they would get destroyed in any comparison to other 3.9 litre engines on power and torque. Lately the 13B would even lose out on economy to the current generation of V6's. As a 2 stroke, I'll leave out emissions as it's an obvious problem. Rock and a hard place, 1.3 or 3.9 Mazda lose either way, that's why they gave up and used a 2.3 litre 4 inline 4 cylinder in the 6 and 3 ranges. Cheers Gary

It's actually not pointless, well not on my behalf anyway. Because I'm talking about facts, irrefutable facts. Any comments on "this is better than that" are based on solid numbers, engine capacity, RPM, horsepower, torque, weight and fuel consumption. I simply post the facts and then the readers can make up their own minds. How many people had actually questioned Mazdas capacity measurement accuracy before this thread? And the RPM questions? As for one sided, I actually take offence to that. I have built many rotary engined road and race cars, the first one (an RX2) back in the '70’s. One (an RX7) was the only car ever to win both NSW and Vic Improved Production Championships in the same year. So my opinions are based on what I know from years of personal experience with rotary engines and then by applying simple logic. I can sure as hell see the whole picture, including the years of subterfuge and supression of the true facts. Cheers Gary

What? The current lap record holder at Mallala, Sandown and Winton actually is an RX3 powered by 1.8 litre Mazda 4 Cylinder turbocharged engine with a restrictor. He took a rotary engine out of that car and then started winning and setting lap records. Interesting history there. Phil Irving OBE, Repco Brabham designer, author of many books, actually did a study on rotary engine capacity in the '70's. Based on sound automotive principles he arrived at a capacity of ~3.2 litres for a 12A. This was submitted to CAMS but was rejected by the then CAMS President John Large. As most people know the Large one was the man most responsible for allowing a Sports Car (Mazda RX7) to race in the Australian Touring Car Championship at the behest of one Allan Moffat. Hence perpetuating an almost bigger lie than 1.3 litres and 9,000 rpm, that being an RX7 is a Touring Car. Cheers Gary

Nice try at muddying the water, the fact is turbocharged or not the capacity of the engine is still the capacity of the engine and a 13B is 3.9 litres. It's an invalid comparison anyway, nobody hides the fact that it's a 2 litre turbocharged engine, but Mazda lie and call a 3. 9 litre engine a 1.3 litre. There is no comparison, next you will be saying just because a 6.2 Chrysler Hemi can switch off 4 cylinders at any one time that it's really a 3.1 litre. The fact remains it's still a 6.2 litre, just like a 13B is 3.9 litres. I don't know about you, by my tacho reads ignition pulses, it doesn't actually count the crankshaft revolutions. Tacho's are very simple devices, for a 2 stroke they count how many combuston events per minute and divide it by the number of combustion chambers and that = rpm. Very simple, now do it for a rotary engine and you end up at 3,000 rpm. It's not that hard to understand. Cheers Gary

My 2.4 litre pistron engine (Honda K24) puts out more torque and horsepower than the your rotary and it weighs 15 kgs less. Plus it's a legal under 2.5 litre engine, not a lied about 3.9 litre and it actually does rev to 9,000 rpm not 3,000 rpm. As well as the afformentioned K24 you could also use a K20 as found in the fast Lotus's, like say the SuperLap 2008 winner or an F20C. You need to get out more and look at real engines, stop living in '70's. Not compared to a 3.9 litre slow spinning engine Cheers Gary

Dunc - After, sadly... that was me on the way home yesterday Thanks guys One thing to note if the f**ks strip it, the red recaros are on BRIDE rails. This means that they have dodgy alloy spacer plates to fit the base of the recaros. Wheels are Enkei RP-F1s. As Dad said, this car has had more hours than insurance can cover. There's a lot of little identifiable things in the car. Has a greddy style plenum, GTR cooler (black) non chopped front bar... looks fairly standard. See it, call me 0418432857 The car is not the biggest issue, the camera gear in the boot is..... Matt

A topic we hear all too often, SoSK's white R33GTST S1.5 M Spec was stolen last night from his girl friend's house in Taren Point. Rego is GO33GO in white on black NSW plates with an SAU sticker under the rear number plate, it has silver Enkie alloys, red Recoaro front seats, DBA 5000 series front rotors with red hats, yellow Selbys Swaybars are visible, windows are not tinted and there is a SuperLap sticker on the RHS rear window. That's pretty much what you can see, there is obviously a lot of stuff underneath but the above is enough to identify it externally. All help appreciated, I spent lot of hours on this car that insurance isn't going to come close to covering. Cheers Gary

At the real Australian price, MCA's would be a much better choice technically, especialy with remote rather than attached cannisters. Then add in local track knowledge, faster turn around, readily available spares and track side support at major meetings. In fact for not much more you could have 2 way adjustable Swedish Ohlins or Sach/Boge, both of which are superior solutions. That’s the problem with comparing $2K shocks with $7K shocks, the name might in fact be the only similarity. They sure as hell aren’t going to be comparable technically. Cheers Gary

Cost, is that $6.5K + freight + 10% duty + 10% GST = let's say $8.5K ? If so, are we not talking chalk and cheese with the V35 set. Who services them in Australia? What spring rates did you select ? They have no helper/tender springs, doesn't that concern you regarding limited droop travel? Cheers Gary

Too high a pring rate sacrifices traction, nothing you with the shocks will change that fact. Sure it would balance up the rates, but in doing that you would end up with is too high a rear spring rate. Hence compromise the rear traction. The rear progressive (soft) spring rate is almost completely sacrificial. The progressive winding is used much like the helper spring on the front. It will have a slight effect on ride comfort when the fuel tank level is low and only the drover on board. Handling wise it's a straight comparison as you would expect with only ~10% variation in the (high) spring rate. Trying not to pick on you, but from this observation it is obvious that you have very little understanding of what helper springs are actually there for. The idea of a helper spring is to facilitate as much droop travel as possible, so the shock has sufficient extension to keep the wheels on the ground. As the rate of the main spring increases the amount it is compressed by the weight of the car lessens. Add to that the requirement to keep the spring trapped at all times and its easy to see that without helper springs there would be very little droop travel possible An example, ignoring movement and leverage ratios for a moment. Let's say you have a 3600 lb car (~1650 kgs) with 500 lbs/inch front springs and 400 lbs/inch rear springs. That means 1800 lbs/inch of total spring rate (500 + 500 + 400 + 400 = 1800). When you put the weight of the car (3600 lbs) with 55/45 weight distribution onto 1800 lbs of spring rate you get 2” of suspension compression at each spring (corner). Keeping in mind the need to keep the springs trapped, that means as soon as you lift the chassis 2” the wheels come off the ground. Now add helper springs at the front and progressive (sacrificial) coils at the rear. That adds substantially to the amount of droop travel helping to keep the wheels on the ground. The reason why helper springs are not used is simple cost, they can keep the cost down by leaving out the additional components. Again this shows limited understanding of suspension travel. Or perhaps another victim of junk publicity put out by parts desk jockeys with zero knowledge of suspension. Obviously chasing a sale they are going to tell you what they know, which is usually limited to some positive points about the particular set up they are trying to sell you. Most likely they know nothing about the negatives and even if they did they wouldn’t tell you. By shortening the shock body you are reducing the droop travel of the suspension. A simple example of the effect of that, go over a bump of sufficient amplitude and the reduced travel means the wheel lifts off the ground after the bump. Obviously not an ideal situation on the road, but equally so on the track where I often see cars with too little droop actually lift both of the rear wheels off the track under brakes. Not a nice situation if you are trail braking on turn in, usually a spin is the result. Not to diminish the importance of a shock dyno, but unless he has a shock dyno control program to input the mapping of roads/tracks he drives on, it won't reveal anything about ride comfort or tyre contact patch improvements. All it will show is the shock being able to control the spring rate, within the testing parameters. The skill in operating a shock dyno is knowing the specific conditions that the shock is going to be subjected to. Firstly you can only have coil overs on the front of a V35 because the springs and shocks are separate on the rear. So without additional hardware the rear ride height won’t be adjustable. The question then is what use to you is front only height adjustment? On a RWD car adjusting the rear ride height to tune the handling is quite common. Personally, once the front ride height is stable (ie; the springs have settled) I would hardly ever adjust it. Plus adjustable ride height is illegal, not that many people worry too much about that, until they get busted one day and have to seek out some standard suspension to borrow to clear the defect. Lesson, don’t throw away your standard springs and shocks. Therefore the only reason for front ride height adjustment is appearance, you can fiddle with the height until you like the look. Whether that look is good for handling or not is another question. It’s your money, so only you know whether the extra cost (and legality risk) is justified. Cheers Gary

So much fun to be had by all, I don't have time to respond to each one individually, so a quick list will have to do; 1. Mazda were banned from LeMans because they lied about the engine capacity, as they always have. They broke the category engine capacity limit, the fact is a 26B is actually 7.8 litres. They were told by the FIA to either enter the car as a 7.8 litre or walk away. Obviously entering it as a 7.8 litre would have proven what we all know and brought to an end the 40 years of lying. So Mazda withdrew. 2. Of course rotaries are popular in some drag racing where the Mazda lies on their actually capacity is still believed by some. Compare the performance of a 13B with any other 3.9 litre engine and their true worth is revealed. A 20B looks pretty dismal when compared with its true competitors, 5.85 litre engines. In comparison to big block V8's in true drag racing, rotary numbers are infinitesimal anyway. 3. I bet Mazda have spent more on 40 years of rotary engine development than Honda did on the their F1 and Indy Car engines. That's why it was a very valid comparison. BTW a 3 litre F1 Honda V10 engine weighs less than a race ready13B and produces more than double the horsepower. 4. The rotors, that produce the power, cycle at 3,000 rpm, which is the same as the pistons, that produce the power, cycle at 3,000 rpm. Hence why a rotary engine only does 3,000 rpm, multiplying by the eccentric shaft gear up ratio is irrelevant. 5. Mazda have been lying both ways, they can't claim both 1.3 litres and 9,000 rpm at the same time. If they multiply the rotor cycle rate by 3 to get rpm then they have to multiply the capacity by 3 to get the true capacity. Conversely if they count only one side (of a 3 sided rotor) to get the capacity then they should only count 1/3rd of the rpm. It's a double lie and well overdue for being revealed as such. 6. It's irrefutable that rotaries are 2 strokes. In one complete cycle of the rotor they inlet, compress, combust and exhaust. That's the perfect definition of a 2 stroke. Whereas a 4 stroke takes 2 cycles of the piston to inlet, compress, combust and exhaust. Further evidence of them being 2 strokes is the use of the rotor itself as inlet and exhaust valves and the need for oil in the petrol. If it combusts like a 2 stroke and it smells like a 2 stroke, then there is no doubt it's a 2 stroke 7. For a compact FWD application, rotaries are not such a good package, they are quite wide (in comparison to a slim inline 4) and the inlet and exhaust are on the same side. Add their requirement for a 3.9 litre engine sized radiator, oil cooler and fuel tank and this makes packaging quite difficult. 8. As for the B2200 delivery ute, a valid comparison would be a 3.9 litre 6 cylinder engine. Hell, even a common old 3.6 litre Commodore engine would piss all over a rotary with their 195 kW and 340 Nm. As for a diesel comparison, if you wanted load carrying the most popular diesel conversion, a 3.9 litre Cummins in line 4 at 481 Nm would make a far better proposition. Especially when it came time to fill up the tank. 9. Why is there only one car company that makes rotary engines? Perhaps the other car manufacturers are too smart. Let's face the facts, Mazda didn't invent the rotary engine, Felix Wankel did and his patent was owned by NSU, now part of Audi. Mazda still pays royalty on every rotary engine. Audi wouldn't have to, but they have never bothered with rotary engines. Perhaps they don't want to perpetuate the Mazdas lies. Woudln't it be great if Audi came out with the truth and told the world the true capacity and rpm of a rotary engine? When you get past Mazda's 40 years of lying the real issues with rotaries become obvious. When you truly compare them with their equivalent engine competitors they are deficient in every area, horsepower, torque, rpm, fuel economy and packaging. Cheers Gary

GCG Ball Bearing RB20 turbo high flow + Performance Metalcraft split dump + Nismo 3" exhaust - cat + Power FC + GTR injectors + 98 ron pump fuel + R34GTT SMIC + Jamex panel filter= 225 rwkw. Cheers Gary

From memory there is an 8 mm difference in the bore size between an RB20 (~78mm) and an RB25 (~86mm). I don't see how you can reduce the combustion chamber diameter in an RB25 head by 8mm to fit the RB20 bore. Conversely the RB20 block won't handle an 8mm over bore to fit the RB25 combustion chamber. For clarification, way back we used to use RB20DE or RB20DET cylinder heads on RB30E and RB30ET bottom ends to achieve a DOHC RB30. It was a prick of a job that took hours of welding and re-machining as the water jackets don't match up and, more importantly, we had to increase the diameter of the RB20 combustion chamber from ~78mm to ~86 mm to suite the RB30 bore diameter. Back then RB26 heads were the only alternative for RB30 DOHC conversion and they were unbelievably expensive and very rare. Once the RB25 heads became readily available at low cost everyone stopped using RB20 heads on RB30's. To even bother to do any work on an RB20 you would have to be either forced to by motorsport or road registration regulations or psychotically attached to RB20's (yes, Roy that's you). Personally I have all the parts necessary to built an RB24 (complete RB20, RB26 crank, RB26 forged rods, 4AGZE forged pistons etc etc), have had for years, but I have built 3 x RB30's in that time for my own use. The only reason I continue to keep the RB24 stuff is because there are motorsport regs that benefit an R32GTST with standard block and head and one day I might take advantage of that. Until then I will continue with RB30/26's because value for money wise they are the most effective. Cheers Gary

The way I do it; 1. I ask the tyre engineer what effective spring rates the tyres like, after all maximising the tyre's performance is what it's all about. 2. I measure/calculate the effective spring rate versus actual spring rate noting leverage and movement ratios 3. I weigh the car with the driver in place and enough fuel to do the race distance 4. In a front engined rear wheel drive car the front spring rate is the one that more closely matches the highest effective spring rate the tyres like to operate in. 5. In a front engined rear wheel drive car the rear spring rate is the one that more closely matches the lowest effective spring rate the tyres like to operate in. 6. In a front engined 4wd car the front and rear effective spring rates are closer together than in a a front engined rear wheel drive car 7. In a front engined fwd car the front and rear effective spring rates are even closer together The starting formula is then pretty simple Front spring rate = what the tyre likes / the front leverage ratio / the front movement ratio Rear spring rate = the front spring rate X weight distribution / the rear leverage ratio / the rear movement ratio This give me a good starting point for the spring rates. Personally I then prefer to tune out any handling imbalance with antiroll (ie; swaybars sizes and adjustment). Some people do the same via spring rates. A simple example, in an understeering chassis I would use more rear antiroll and/or les front antiroll to overcome it. Some people would use a higher rear spring rate (than the above formula would indicate) to overcome it. A combination of the two (more rear spring + more rear bar) is not uncommon. The problem with the higher rear spring rate is that its always there, even when the car is not understeering (ie; accelerating and/or braking). Whereas more antiroll is only there when needed, ie; when cornering. Plus its damn site easier to adjust a swaybar than it is to change the rear springs. There are further complications in the form of anti dive and anti squat geometry that have an effect on the spring rates. For example it is beneficial to dial out excessive nose dive under brakes with anti dive geometry than by using higher front spring rates. Once again the problem with the higher front spring rate is that its always there, even when the car is not braking ie; when accelerating. Another item that affects the spring rate choice is the availability of adjustment. For example if there isn't enough negative camber available to maintain the optimum tyre contact patch, then there may be no choice other than to increase the spring rate above that which would otherwise be ideal. It is always worth keeping in mind that shock absorbers with separate adjustment for bump and rebound mean we are less reliant on springs, to optimise the chassis control. That shock absorbers change the timing of events, slow them down or speed them up. Which doesn't necessarily mean change the amplitude of the event, just how long it takes to have an effect. Add it up and it's easy to see why there are multiple answers to the "what spring rate do I run question?" Personally I always prefer to run the softest spring rate possible and use the other weapons like anti roll bars, anti dive/squat geometry, damper adjustment, correct camber and caster to achieve a superior result. For some people that's all too hard and they reach for the only gun they know, higher spring rates. Cheers Gary

There arer three reasons I don't rate them as high as the Bilstein PSS9 Firstly the front spring rates ie; 560 lbs/inch, is simply rediculous, it's a higher rate than we ran in the circuit racing 350Z. Perhaps more importantly, the balance of the effective spring rates is not in line with the weight distribution. With 55% of the total weight on the front it makes no sense to have 70% of the total effective spring rate there. The rear effective spring rate at 200 lbs/inch is not too bad, it's the front spring rate that is way out of line. Secondly this leads me to the conclusion that, if the spring rates are so out of balance, the damper rates must be equally so. If we attempt to fix the excessive front spring rate by fitting springs with more appropriate rates ie; 33% softer, then we will almost certainly run into valving issues. If we use the external adjuster to reduce the rebound damping to more closely match the softer springs, at the same time we will be reducing the bump damping. Which is undesirable when using a softer spring, where it would in fact be more appropriate to increase the bump damping to supplement the spring rate. Lastly the fact that they are marketed almost soley for JDM consumption means high frequency valving tuned for fine gravel and tarmac style road construction with high quality maintenance. In Australia we use course gravel road construction, as well as jointed concrete and we have what would be considered very poor quality maintenance. So let's compare that with the Bilstein PSS9's, a far more sensible effective front spring rate, one that is also more in tune with the weight distribution. In fact an almost perfect 56/44 match. No change in spring rate required and hence no chance of the damper adjustment being counter productive. Engineered in Europe where course gravel, concrete and even cobblestone roads are not uncommon. In conclusion, the Bilsteins are serviceable, have readlily spare parts and alternative valving and very experienced local technicians and the Yamahas don't have any of those. I believe I have good reasons for my rankings, but in the end it's just my opinion and I'm not right all of the time. Cheers Gary

You got it. The fronts will also fit; R32GT/GTS/GTST 2 door and 4 door Stagea 2wd S1 and S2, manual and automatic R33GT/GTS/GTST 2 door and 4 door The rears will also fit; Stagea S2 Manual 2wd and 4wd R33GTR R34GTR Cheers Gary

Front or rear? Cheers Gary

But it's not, there is no gear ratio between a crankshaft and its attached pistons, it's a one to one relationship. Why should we multiple the rotor rpm by 3 just because Mazda, rather Felix Wankel, chose a 3 to 1 ratio? If they had chosen 6 to 1 ratio, would we be saying they reved to 18,000rpm? The fact is the rotors are turning at 3,000 rpm, that's the bottom line. That's the Mazda lie and some people believed it for 40 years, some even still do. Certainly proves the old addage, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. This people isn't fooled by the lies and never was. But a 13B is a 3.9 litre, 6 cylinder, 2 stroke. Even at 3,000 (piston) rpm a 3.9 litre, 6 cylinder, 4 stroke piston engine would develop a ship load more horsepower. At the same time use a heap less fuel and generate a heap less emissions. The problem with rotaries isn't horsepower as such, it's torque or rather the lack of it. What if we compared it with another 2 stroke with somewhat similar rpm, say a 3.9 litre 2 stroke diesel? That's when the true rotary torque hole is really revealed. Cheers Gary

In one revolution of the rotor they inlet, combust and exhaust. That's a 2 stroke, no argument. Check it out, you'll find I'm right There are no cylinders in a rotary. The capacity of an engine is simply how much does it pump in one cycle (360 degrees) and in the case of a 13B that's 3.9 litres. We don't take a 6 litre V8 4 stroke and say it only fires every second stroke so it's really a 3 litre engine. They pump 6 litres in 1 cycle of the pistons and a 13B pumps 3.9 litres in one cycle of the rotors. So why should we treat rotaries any different? A 2.4 litre F1 engine make 700 bhp, with no turbos required. A 2.6 litre Indy Car V8 makes 800 bhp at 7psi. There are plenty of RB26’s at 2.6/2.8 litres that make a 1000 bhp and at 3 litres lots of 2JZ’s regularly make 1200+bhp. Put in to that context, a 3.9 litre turbo rotary is pretty average at 1000 bhp. Then there is the fact that it’s a 2 stroke, that means twice as many firings per cycle, so it should really be compared to a 6.8 litre 4 stroke. In which case 2500 bhp is more like it. Two plugs are used for more than just emissions, try turning of the trailing spark plugs and see how much horsepower you lose. If I remember rightly they fired simultaneously, not consecutively like a rotary. Regardless, they stopped making them 20 years ago, technology removed the need. But the good old 2009 RX8 still needs 2 plugs per rotor, just like they did 40 years ago in R100's. Not a lot of progress there. Compared to a 1.3L engine's gearbox it is. Of course, since we know it's really a 3.9 litre, then it's not so big. Cheers Gary

They suffer from the lies that Mazda spun back in the 70's. Lie #1, they are a 4 stroke engine, rubbish they are a 2 stroke. Every one knows it, but Mazda lied because they didn't want the "lawn mower syndrome” attached to rotaries. The fact remains they are really a 2 stroke. The fact that they need oil in the petrol is just another nail in the 2 stroke coffin. Lie #2, they rev to 9,000 rpm. no they don't. The rotors only do 3,000 rpm they use a step up gear ratio to spin the eccentric shaft at 3 times the rotor rpm. Why? So they could use normal piston engine gearbox and diff ratios. They could have easily used say 6 to 1 rotor to shaft ratios, then claimed 18,000 rpm. The rotors would still only be doing 3,000 rpm, their true rpm. Lie #3, the biggest lie, the small engine capacity eg; a 13B is 1.3 litres. What a whopper of lie that was. Their true capacity is 3.9 litres, 2 x 3 sided rotors x .66 litre each side = 3.9 litres. Everyone knows it, but Mazda persisted with the lie. As with most things, the lies came back to bight Mazda. They use a lot of petrol for a 1.3L 4 stroke. But not so much for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke. They take a big turbo for a 1.3L 4 stroke, it’s not so big when the truth is 3.9 litre 2 stroke. They produce an impressive amount horsepower per litre when using the lies of a 1.3L 4 stroke. But when the truth is used, it’s a shit house power output for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke. So put the lies away and look at rotaries in the true light of day. As a 3.9 litre 2 stroke (in the case of a 13B) they have OK horsepower output, but lousy torque output due to their poor combustion chamber shape. That’s why they need 2 spark plugs. Another reason for their poor torque output is the compression ratio, which is very low, another result of that poor combustion chamber shape. Their fuel economy is OK for a 3.9 litre 2 stroke, but they don’t use the fuel efficiently, hence poor power output per litre of fuel used. They respond well to turbocharging as you would expect from a 3.9 litre 2 stroke with a low compression ratio. Add it all up and you find the truth is a pretty average engine, with only one advantage and that’s small external size. But the fact is it’s not user friendly size. They don’t fit well in a front wheel drive application compared to a compact inline 4 cylinder. They don’t offer much space saving in a rear wheel drive application as they need a radiator, oil cooler and gearbox big enough for a 3.9 litre 4 stroke. A compact 3.9 litre V6 doesn’t need any bigger engine bay and yet produces more horsepower, more torque and gets better fuel economy. But back to real reason for rotaries tiny niche market, the Mazda lies from the ‘70’s. Take them away and they become a much more believable engine alternative. Cheers Gary

Not quite, some years ago Yamaha bought Ohlins (a Swedish company BTW) for their motorcycle racing shock absorber technology. We use real Ohlins what we call "Swedish Ohlins" in the V8 SuperCars and cars in a number of other race categories, have been for a number of years. They are mid race shock price range at $4-5K per corner but very effective, wider operating window than Penskes and cheaper than Sach/Boges, so good value for money. Not quite as good in the value for money stakes as MCA's (nee Proflex) at $2-3K per corner. Since the acquisition Yamaha have been using the Ohlins name on the high end shocks made in the Yamaha factory in Japan, what we call "Japanese Ohlins". They are in no way comparable to the Swedish Ohlins, no parts are interchangeable, the valving system and piston are a completely different design. The Australian Ohlins agent would never touch touch "Japanaese Ohlins", wouldn't service them and didn't carry any spare parts. Don't get me wrong, there are far worse shocks around, sure they are not technically brilliant, but that's not the problem. The real issue is they are 100% designed for Japanese roads and Japanese buyer expectations. They are excessively harsh, their high frequency valving is not suited to our course gravel road base and they often come with spring rates that are beyond what we use in race cars. You can have pretty much anything certified, all you need is money. Each car has to be engineered itself and I would estimate $800 to $1500 per suspension arm for testing and then sign off. That would still leave the issues of dust prevention and greasing. That's pretty tricky since the V35 doesn't have coil overs in the rear, the springs are a separate mounting from the shocks. That's not the problem, the issue is you can change the height anytime you like, that's what is illegal. Think about it, you get defected for too low, go home, wind up the height, get the defect lifted, go home and lower it back again. The record as far as I know it is 8 times, for one guy in NSW. That's why it's specifically illegal, nothing to do with quality. But what about the roll centre? What are doing about that? Lowering a V35 30 mm lowers the roll centre 43 mm, hence increases the roll couple by 13 mm. So you actually get more roll after you lower it. Do it properly. First thing is upgraded swaybars, the undisputed best value for money suspension upgrade there is. They are 100% legal. Next is changing the static alignment, they need more caster and front tow out for a starter. That's 100% legal. Then swap out the soft rubber bushes with polyurethane to maintain the dynamic geometry. Yep that's 100% legal too. The standard spring rates are not too bad, if you'd like to retain the current level of ride comfort. Then a set of Bilstein shocks, they will improve the handling another step, control the additional anti roll rate from the upgraded swaybars without diminishing the ride comfort unduly. Also 100% legal. Why Bilsteins? Well Nissan have used Bilstein as a partner many of their high end applications for many years, and they did choose them for the R35GTR and then went back to Bilstein again for the R35GTR V Spec dampers. Maybe they know just a little about Nissan suspension systems and world wide conditions. Not very glamorous though is it, not a lot of shiny stuff to show your mates, or a trendy low ride height to look at. Just good handling, some semblance of ride comfort and no defect opportunity. From there it depends on how serious you are about the track work. For example, if you are going to swap to R type tyres for the track days then an increase in spring rate maybe justified. But every step in that direction takes it further away from comfortable daily driving. Cheers Gary

In every organisation there is at least one dick head. They are all listed on the Castrol web site; http://www.datateck.com.au/lube/castr_au/default.asp Type in "Nissan" Go down the drop down list and you will find; Cars, Wagons, Utilities & Car-type 4-Wheel Drives NISSAN (Includes DATSUN) GT-T Series (R34) , 2.5 Litre Turbo Eng., RWD (1998-2003) Crankcase CASTROL EDGE SPORT 5W-30 Castrol Edge Sport 5W-30 is a full synthetic SAE 5W-30, API SM/CF. ACEA A3/B3/B4 engine oil formulated for highly tuned fast fours and latest technology engines. It provides superb strength and ultimate protection even when running hard, fast or hot. CASTROL EDGE SPORT 0W-40 Service Refill Capacity: 4.6* Litres (See Note 510) Manual Transmission CASTROL VMX 80 Mild extreme pressure gear oil with special viscosity stabilisers to overcome shift problems. Recommended for use in transaxles of most front wheel drive vehicles with a transverse engine and manual transmissions experiencing low temperature shift problems. SAE 75W/80, API GL4. CASTROL VMX-M 75W/85 Mineral transmission and transaxle fluid especially formulated as a factory fill fluid for Mitsubishi vehicles and used in passenger cars, 4WD's and light commercial vehicles. SAE 75W/85, API GL4. Automatic Transmission CASTROL TQ DIII Castrol TQ DIII is an automatic transmission fluid formulated to satisfy the GM H-36163 specification, and suitable for automatic transmissions requiring a GM fluid. Not suitable for use where Dexron® VI fluids are required. Differential CASTROL EPX 80W/90 Multipurpose gearbox, steering gear and differential oil for passenger cars, light trucks, farm tractors and earthmoving equipment. SAE 80W/90, API GL5. (See Note 1174) Power Steering CASTROL PS FLUID A mineral based fluid suitable for most power steering systems where the following specifications are nominated: Dexron®, Dexron® II & Dexron® III, SAE 10W or 10W-20 engine oil, ISO 32 or 46 hydraulic oil, Ford M2C-33 F/G, Ford M2C-138 CJ, Ford M2C-166H, Ford Mercon, Ford SQM-2C-9010A and Mitsubishi Power Steering Fluid. (See Note 516) Notes * Includes Oil Filter 510 May also use CASTROL MAGNATEC. 516 May also use CASTROL TRANSMAX M, CASTROL TQF or CASTROL TQ DIII. 1174 If operating consistently above 30 deg. C, use CASTROL EPX 85W/140. For competition cars I use Edge 10W60, Syntrans 75W85 and SAF-XA. Cheers Gary