Sydneykid

You are looking at it in reverse. The ADR's primary requirement is that every single part of the vehicle be as designed by and delivered from the manufacturer. You can't change anything unless there is a specific regulation allowing you to. Simply put, there is no ADR allowing you to change suspension arms, so they must be standard. There is specific allowance for changing things, usually termed wear and tear items, such as brake pads, wiper blades, tyres, brake rotors, shock absorbers, globes etc. Included in that grouping are suspension bushes, which is why it is not an infringment of an ADR to replace non adjustable rubber bushes with adjustable polyurethane ones as long as the suspension arms themselves remain as standard. Cheers Gary

They have no dust covers that I can see and they have no grease points. They look to have rudimentary plastic scraper which won't last one trip into a sand trap. In a decent sphercial bearing there is more than $US15 worth of steel, so I seriously doubt the quality claim as well. Harsh? Maybe.....no not realy. Cheers Gary

Yep, that's normal. Just touch up the caliper leg to clear the socket head with a file or angle grinder, no big deal. Cheers Gary

A pet subject of mine, so please excuse the questions. An RB30 has a rod stroke ratio (1.76 to 1) close to what many people consider close the ideal (1.75 to 1). Whereas the RB29 combination has a far from ideal rod stroke ratio of around 1.47 to 1 (I'm guessing around 123 mm rod length). I know you know this, but I'll post it for other readers who may not. In any engiune a less than ideal rod/stroke ratio has bad effects on a number of engine dynamics, including piston speed & acceleration, piston dwell at TDC and BDC, piston side loads, cylinder wall side loading and bearing loads. A low ratio like this one would mean a large rod angle, creating greater potential for accelerated wear to cylinder walls, pistons and rings. Under extrmeme conditions (high boost, high rpm) a severe rod angle can drive a piston right into the cylinder wall. The 3L F1 engines commonly had rod stroke ratios over 2 to 1, for all the same reasons, just more so because of their 20,000 rpm and high specific power outputs. So all other things being equal, an RB30 crank in an RB30 block with RB30 length rods is going to give more horsepower, more torque, less wear and be less prone to failure than an R29, plus it is going to cost a whole lot less. So why bother with an RB29? There are a couple of good designs of 4wd sump adaptors with good qualityy oil pick up systems. The tricks to overcoming the the extra 30mm of RB30 block height are well known. Having hacked up a number of RB25/26/30 blocks I can't say that the RB26 block is superior in any area. I saw it this way back in 1999 with first RB30 in R32 I did and I still see it the same way now. What am I missing? Cheers Gary

Surely 345 mm Don't you find excessive corner exit oversteer with 20 mm of rake? For us the range is usually 5mm to 15mm, 20 mm improves the turn in a bit but the sacrifice in corner exit speed is too great. That's why we run 355 front and 345 rear, it gives that 10 mm rake. Is that why you have so much toe in on the rear (5 mm each side), to compensate for the 20 mm rake? Cheers Gary

Yep, just take the diameter of the wire away twice from the OD and you get the ID. But you know that so, you were just testing me right? Yep, but dead coils, sacrificial coils, progressive wire diameter, conical coils, beehive shapes etc all make the inputs complex. As you know the skill and experience is realy needed in the input, not so much in the formulas themselves. OK Yep All I am doing is offering a no cost service in my spare time, not that there is a lot of that available. The only reason I have been doing it for over 4 years, is because I just hate guys guessing or not knowing their spring rates Excellent, we should catch up somewhere, have a beer (or, as the guys know, a Jack Daniels for me) and talk technical. Just so you know I'm also not another internet hack, I have been working with suspension on race cars for over 30 years (yes, I am that old), I hold a diploma, a degree and a masters. I designed the first 400 coil spring part numbers to start, from scratch the Whilteline Springs program in the late 90's. I actually have no idea on the number of swaybar designs that I have engineered, maybe 600 or so. I also, again started from a zero base, the Whiteline alignment products range, including the first ever caster/anti lift kits for WRX's. I worked for Jaguar for 5 years as Motorsport Manager including the successful 1984 and 1985 Bathurst campaigns. I was with the Holden Dealer Team at Bathurst in 1979 which Brocky won by 6 laps. I was also in the team in 1980 when he won by only 1 lap. Just to show the old guys still has it, earlier this year I was Team Manager and Race Engineer at the Bathurst 12 Hour where we came 1st and 2nd in Class. That'll do, I could go on for pages, best to stop now. I'm serious about the catch up and a drink Cheers Gary

The 13B turbo injectors are rated at 550 cc's but actually flow around 570 cc's at 36 psi and they are high impedance (13 ohms). That's what's in SoSK's R33GTST and at 3 bar (45psi) base fuel pressure they are at 65% duty at 266 rwkw. Cheers Gary

I have tried a few brews of Ethanol, mostly when Shell V Power Racing (100 ron) disappeared. The 60% 98 ron and 40% E85 was interesting, which is actually 60% 98 ron, 5% 92 ron and 35% Ethanol. It makes around 100 ron and it was particularly effective in an R33GTST with the default Power FC tune. No detonation due to the high ron and it leaned out the normally rich Power FC tune due to the Ethanol content ie; around 10% leaner. Normal starting and no high temperature fuel vaporisation problems which I sometimes get with 100% E85. The other brew I found useful was 40% 98 ron and 60% E85, which is actually 40% 98 ron, 10% 92 ron and 50% Ethanol.. So it’s pretty much 50/50 petrol and ethanol. It makes a very useful 102 ron, but the main gain was lower exhaust gas temps for track days. That’s the extra Ethanol at work there. Again normal starting and cold running but it did need careful tuning. It was a handy mix as no injector upgrade was necessary as there was just enough head room. It picked up a noticeable amount of torque due to the additional ignition advance we could slip into it. Particularly from idle to around 5,000 rpm and you could easily feel the faster throttle response. Cheers Gary

Thanks Dunk. Improved Production (3J) is a Touring Car category. so if it's a 2 seater Zed, then it's definitely a Sports Car (FIA Group B). There is no history of 2+2 Zeds in Improved Production and I haven't seen any separate FIA Homolgation Papers for them either. If it is a 2+2 and you can't find FIA Touring Car (FIA Group A or Group N) Homologatiion papers for it then it would have to pass the Touring Car Dimension Test which specifies minimume distances, pedal to steeering wheel to driver's seat (that would be OK), then seat to rear window (where most "sports cars" are too small and fail the test). PM me if you want to get into more detail Cheers Gary

This is a good thread to ask a similar question that has had me thinking about which way to go for a while, so some expert input might help. This is what I have in the car; 1. R32GTST cradle with Noltec subframe bushes, Whiteline Pineapples, de-bracketed, lightened and with minor geometry changes. 2. R32GTST hubs with MCA shocks that suite (spherical bearing lower mount). 3. R32GTST 4.375 diff with unknown LSD, works well 4. Polyurethane bushes in the upper and lower control arms plus the diff 5. A brand new, one piece tail shaft (R33GTST gearbox to R32GTST diff) 7. Milled alloy HICAS elimination bracket with R32GTST steering arms and new tie rod ends The problem is, with 600 rwhp or so, I am a bit concerned with the durability of the drive shafts plus the 4.375 dif ratio is a bit short for the RB31DET rpm range (7500 rpm at 275 kph). I’ll only get one run at the drags with the MT ET’s before they flick me for the circuit race roll cage and no parachute etc. So I want to get it right, first time. Other than that it’s circuit racing use only. I’d like to also retain the R32GTST cradles as it . I also have a Nismo R32GTR LSD, a standard R32GTR diff with 4.1 ratio, a set of R32GTR drive shafts and a pair of R32GTR hubs. So what I was contemplating; A. Machine the alloy R32GTR hubs to take the R32GTST style lower shock mounts. That will get some unsprung weight out compared to the R32GTST hubs and I can still use the MCA shocks as is. I’ll also put the R32GTR lower ball joints onto the R32GTST lower control arms with some roll centre correction. B. Slot the Nismo LSD into the R32GTR diff C. Then use the R32GTR drive shafts, that will add back some sprung and unpsrung weight D. Either modify the R32GTR diff to take the R32GTST drive shaft (universal) or modify the tailshaft to take the R32GTR style universal. E. Sell off the unused bits, mainly the R32GTST diff with LSD, R32GTST drive shafts and R32GTST hubs. The questions; a. Will the weight saved in the hubs (100% unsprung) offset the weight gained in the drive shafts (50% sprung)? b. Will the combination of R32GTST cradle, R32GTST control arms, R32GTR diff, R32GTR drive shafts and R32GTR hubs actually fit together? c. Modify the R32GTR diff to take the R32GTST drive shaft (universal) or modify the tailshaft to take the R32GTR style universal? d. Is my assumption that the pick up (pivot) points on the R32GTR hubs the same as the R32GTST correct? Any and all inputs greatly appreciated. Cheers Gary

Interestingly MCA use some Bilstein pistons, rods, seals and valves Cheers Gary

From personal experience, with Eibach Springs of course, approximate prices only; Sach/Boge, 4/5 way adjustable remote cannister $16K (what we use on the F3's) Ohlins, 3 way adjustable remote cannister $12K (what we use on the V8 SuperCars) Pensche, 3 way adjustable remote cannister $12K (what we use on the V8 SuperCars) MCA, 3 way adjustable remote cannister $10K (what we use on the Production Race Cars, including the new Evo X we are building for the Bathurst 12 Hour 2010) MCA, 2 way adjustable remote cannister $9K (what is on my own race R32GTST and also the class pole and lap record holder set at the Bathurst 12 Hour 2009) Bilstein, 2 way adjustable remote cannister $6K (what is on a number of Improved Production Cars) Koni, 2 way adjustable remote cannister $7K (what we use on the Sports Sedans) Bilstein PSS9, single adjuster, revalved and with spring rate changes for our roads/tracks, $4.5K (the step up for the guys who just must have adjustables, not availlabe for all Skyline models)) Bilstein non adjustable revalved and with spring rates for our roads/tracks $3K (without doubt the most popular, value for money, set up around for Skylines) DMS, 50 mm 2 way adjustable remoter cannister $5K (work well, but we have had reliability issues). Then daylight Off the shelf Bilsteins for R32GTST, R32GTR, R32GTS4, R33GTST, R33GTS4 and R34GTT $2K (What I have in my road R33GTST and Stagea S1) (BUT Stagea S1 and S2 plus R33/34GTR and R33/34GTS4 need substantial revalving) Showa N1's, single adjuster, $5K (only for Hondas) JRZ 2 way adjustable, remote cannister, $5K (only tried them in light cars, where they work well, no Skylines as yet) Yamahas (Japanese Ohlins), single adjuster, revalved and spring rate changes for our roads/tracks, $4K (with some knowledge they can be made to work OK, not great, but OK) DMS, 40 mm single adjustable $4K (work well for a 40mm, but we have had reliability issues). More daylight Tein N1's, 2 way adjustable, substantially revalved and with spring rate changes for our roads/tracks $7K (I spent 2 years getting them close to right and the MCA's were still 2 seconds a lap faster at Bathurst). Shyte loads of daylight Anything else Japanese and off the shelf Konis (for Skylines, they work well on most other cars). Bucket loads more daylight Anything Chinese and/or Korean Cheers Gary

I did a quick count last week and I am up to 32 N1 oil pumps used in RB's (20's, 25's, 26's and 30's) since 1999 and guess what? Not one single failure recorded by anyone, road or track. So I don't think I will be changing any of mine any time soon. Cheers Gary

We have used Greg's collars on quite a few engines, warm up the collar (in the oven), cool down the crank (in the fridge), push on and they lock up nicely with the temperatures equalised. Grub screws only a safeguard really. It's not the collar to crank clearance that's the worry, it's the collar OD to oil pump flange clearance that needs measuring. Greg's collars are a nice snug fit, ID and OD, never had a problem with excessive clearance. Maybe another reason why, like Duncan, we haven't had any issues with N1 oil pumps over 10 years of using them. Cheers Gary

I'm using 32 mm rotors with standard (Sumitomo) callipers, no problems. You just need to make sure the pistons are all the way home when installing new pads. Cheers Gary

That looks like excessive clearance, hammer marks, followed by cracking. How's the flanges on the crank collar? If they are worn it won't matter what pump you use, it will still get hammered. Cheers Gary

Duncan covered the rear quite well. For the front I simply redrill the holes in the brackets for the upper control arm inner pivot to remove the twist. From memory the rear hole needs to be further down, lower in the bracket, by around 15 mm. To work out where to redrill the hole I do a dummy assembly (no spring or shock installed and at the correct ride height) and then put the front bolt into the upper control arm via the standard hole. Then it's obvious where the rear hole needs to be drilled. Cheers Gary

Depends on the wheel width and offset. The main lock stop is the hub against the rear of the lower control arm and the drive shaft angles. Cheers Gary

No Cheers Gary

Can't speak for the other guys but the categories we race in don't allow the changing of control arms. Factory is bonded rubber, so they accommodate rotation within their natural construction. R32's have terrible front control arm geometry that causes distortion in the bushes. Nissan recognised this, that's why R33's and R34 have the wide spread upper wishbone style control arm. What is the lubrication method to prevent galling? We would change camber settings 3 or 4 times over the course of a race weekend. Rotating an eccentric crush tube takes far less time than removing and replacing upper control arms everytime. Especialy when working inside a hot wheel arch. What about the dynamic camber curves? Roll centre? Drive shaft angles? Scrub radius? But the standard rear geometry in an R32 is not the best. The anti squat built into the lower control arm pivot points for example. Nisan recognised this, that's why R33's and R34 have far superior rear geometry. Driver feel is important but the hard data is the truth serum for that feel. The car may feel better but if it turns in slower lap times, over a race distance, doesn't generate the same G forces, longitudinal and/or lateral, then the data doesn't lie. Cheers Gary

I have an R32GTST split dump pipe on my Stagea S1 auto. It did have an R33GTST split dump on it before I changed to the better design. That was a Performance Metalcraft split dump that came off the R32GTST race car, it was no longer needed when I put the RB31DET in it. The R33GTST split dump then went on to the R33GTST. Before I had it on the Stagea for a short time it was on an R34GTT. So my personal experience has been swapping split dumps between R32, R33, R34 and Stagea has not been a problem. As for exhaust, my Stagea S1 auto has an R32GTR 3.25" Nismo exhaust on it suitably extended (around 100 mm) by Liverpool Exhaust. That particular exhaust came off the R32GTST and was replaced by a Trust Titanium exhaust designed for an R33GTR that came off an R34GTT. The brackets on the exhausts (R32/33/Stagea) are all different, but no big deal for any decent exhaust shop to fix. Aren't I a good little recycler Cheers Gary

Damn, I always forget R32GTS4's The R32GTR front swaybar design is unique to the R32 4wd's, so it fits R32GTR's and R32GTS4's. Cheers Gary

The R32GTR front swaybar design is unique, it only fits R32GTR's. Cheers Gary

What sort of bump stops are you running and have they been trimmed to suite the lowered height? Cheers Gary.

I have always been in favour of more caster and less camber. So that's where I have concentrated my efforts. Plus, in general there is a bit too much emphasis on maximising the static camber. I prefer to keep that to a minimum as most of our overtaking is under brakes and too much negative camber ruins that opportunity. In GTR's we also get too much corner exit wheelspin and power understeer when we run too much camber. I have tried a few inner pivot point positions to get rid of the usual R32 bush distortion problem, plus optimising the camber curves. Only at Philips Island did I struggle to get enough static camber with the inner and outer offset crush tubes. By concentrating on the optimisation of the camber curves I have removed even that problem. For the long, high G force corners I aimed for 1 to 1 ie; 1 degree of roll = I degree of camber change, and it's pretty close to that. You can, but it screws around to much with the camber curve and I ended up just going around in circles. As per above, my experience has beem to do the lower control arm outer rather than the upper control arm inner. I don't have that problem, all of the categories we race in require standard control arms. With replacement bushes OK in Production Cars and bushes plus redrilling of mounts OK in Improved Production. The other things is we don't run the cars very low, so they operate close to their design parameters. Cheers Gary