GTSBoy

@skylinesouth_330 Judging by your other posts, you're not a bot.... but that post above looks like your LLM glitched out.

And my previous B6s, being monos, were a bit fatter than stockish twin tubes, and still had bags of clearance. The lower mounts on typical coilovers are fatter, and fat all the way to the bottom.

My emphasis added. I look at them and see bits that look like they were turned out of the same factory - or at least from the same 3D model.

It's a thing. Just go have a look. On your car, they might be clearing. They might be just touching. They might be jammed up pretty hard. On mine. they were "clear" when the car was jacked up and the suspension at full droop. But only just clear. After a short while of having them on, you could see witness marks where they were making contact, and pretty firm contact at that, with the upright at some point in the articulation/bumping/leaning/and whatever other movements go on when you hit potholes, jump train lines, rivers or other Dukes of Hazard type stuff. Chris said that they see it on cars with added camber. Even just a little bit of added camber on some cars. I have -2.5° and the caster wound up as far as you can go (on an R32 that's only something <6° though, and on an R34 you can have more), and I suspect caster would possibly be worse for it as it pulls the bottom of the upright forward, which cannot improve the approach angle of the damper leg to the upright. So, it probably is extremely variable between cars.

Nah, it's correct D. He has it on reversed in that photo, which is why it looks wrong. According to Shockworks. They see this happen when any extra camber (or likely, caster) is in the alignment. The things juuuust clear when on a stocker. But I think that's actually more of luck than good planning. I mean, that clearance is "engineered" by the selection of the offset on that lower pin bushing, but if that's the case, then it could easily be offset another 2mm! Anyway, there is stacks of meat in the bottom mount, so I say Sort of. No vice. Just handheld it and the grinder and had at it. Got one right the first time, had to go back after a test fit on the other. You have to do more damage than you'd think, but it all goes away when you paint it.

My teenage angst, if it was expressed by a band at all, was expressed by 80s hair metal bands, 80s proper metal bands (the British ones), and...... Devo.

I was going to do a hot take that looked like Cool end of spectrum ------------------------------- Uncool end of spectrum The Offspring ----------------Blink 182 ----------------------------------Limp Bizkit and then I realised that it's not a hot take.

Correct use of italics implemented.

Loophole

@cabramatta Good, solid info. Points me towards using a complete conversion loom, which would hopefully avoid potential problems with million year old coil wiring and any hassles with the loom plugs in the Taarks kit.

I thought most aero plugs were a larger form factor too. Certainly the ones that I have used in the past (to make igniters for industrial burners, etc) have been related to the ones that were initially designed back in the 30s for things like the big Merlins and whatnot. Big thread, big fat porcelain, big fat electrodes. Maybe the ones in shitty little modern Cessnas and the like are same form factor as auto plugs...? But even those engines are all....pretty big (capacity, physical size, etc) so compactness of plugs is probably still not an important requirement there.

Yeah, not new. But not real old. They pre-date all the recent time spent on the dyno by.... at least a year. But this engine has probably only had 3 sets of plugs in it in the last...... 14 years or so since I put it in. I just checked, and they are BCPR6, so already down at 0.8mm out of the box. So it's going to get some of the flashy EIX ones at significant comparative cost as a first measure, and if that doesn't solve it, then it will get coilpacks. oooh. Ugly.

I have no desire to run gaps that small. To be honest, I don't know if my plugs are actually at standard gap or if they've been closed up a little. I'd be pretty sure that my bro'-in-law wouldn't consider going down to 0.5 anyway, so it's either 1.1mm or maybe maybe as close as 0.8. In the past, when it was essentially stock enough to not matter, they were definitely 1.1mm. So, yes, closing them up a little may be all that is required. And/or some new plugs. I'm again not sure exactly how old the ones in there are. All these things are the steps to take before dropping a grand on new parts. Ta. At least it means that it can be done with no changes, as opposed to the old LS1 coil upgrade where you'd get a shit result. Can add some dwell easily enough if it struggles at high revs. FWIW, Nistune's doco claims ~3ms at 14V anyway. Which makes me think I need to put a multimeter onto the car to make sure that the alternator is actually doing what it's supposed to when I'm belting it. If that's gone soft then I might be sucking eggs anyway.

Thanx bros. FWIW, Hitachi are the OEM, just not in a Nissan box. Paying more for Nissan boxes is, of course, foolish. But then there's always a fool around somewhere. But this definitely does speak to the difference between Taarks and some of the others, who are charging more for the Hitachi option than Taarks do for the Nissan option. I will almost certainly do the Taarks thing if (hopefully) soon to come diagnosis shows new coils to be the way out. It's annoying. Car got tuned on ~18 psi and went like a ripper. For a little while. And then suddenly it starts missing on (as of most recent testing last night) as little as 15 psi. If it still does it on gate pressure (on the way home tonight), which is barely less than 15 anyway, then it's either just drop the money or start fluffing around with taking it apart and poking and prodding it. Probably just easier to take it apart only when the new coils arrive! @Dose Pipe Sutututu ... is it a thing to want/need to change the dwell time in Nistune for these things? Or are they perfectly happy with the original R34 dwell time?

Hi Y'all, I have a little miss. I might need to replace my Splitfires. Following my own years' worth of preaching, that would involve me stumping up the extra $$ for an R35 kit , instead of like-for-like stock style. So, I'm looking at the various kits around. Some appear to still be pitching coilpacks with the standard stalks, so they're out of contention. But a lot of kits show and/or claim to have shorter stalks and suitable length springs to fit properly and allow the whole lot to stay under the cover. So these are in contention. The obvious suspects (but not in any particular order of preference) are: PRP Haltech Plazmaman Raceworks Golebys (who sell the Franklin Performance kit) Various sorta no-names (at least to me) like Track Industries (who, specifically, have a very low priced kit, which I will address below) EFI Solutions/Taarks. I put Taarks last because I'm interested to know if anyone has any objections to a kit that seems like such good value? They only want $800 for a bracket, (Hitachi) coils, 6 connectors that have to be swapped onto the original loom & 6 bolts. The Track Industries one appears to be the exact same photo of the Taarks one as on the EFI Solutions site. They want even less - $770 (right now, on sale apparently, normally $70 more). The Raceworks kit is essentially the same scope, at the $900 price point.... but it is not clear if it has good stalks. So perhaps to ignore in the context of these others. Everyone else is pitching kits that come in at the $1100-1200 region. Some with essentially the same amount of work involved (ie, swapping coil connectors on the loom). Some with looms, although a lot of these don't seem to be plug and play onto the Neo's main loom anyway, and end up needing to swap the connector at that end of the loom anyway, and many of the loom options seem to add another ~$200 anyway, so you could be up around $1400+ for many of these kits. I think I'd be happy enough to re-terminate the coilpack loom. I'd probably be happier to do that than to hack the end off the loom plug behind that on the main loom, as neither case will let you go back to stock style without doing the same again, and that's not something that's at all palatable more than the first time. But.... Perhaps just getting the Taarks kit, putting the new connectors in the parts tray and spending $200 on the PRP loom would just make life simpler, easier, etc etc, and still only be ~$1k. The plug and playness and non-destructiveness of this option appeals. I imagine that there will be negative comments about at least one of the above kits (or more to the point, one of the manufacturers). Slander away. Thoughts? Experience? Advice along the lines of "Just put your big boy pants on and spend the money like you always tell other people!!111juan!1"?

??????

In all seriousness, this seems like a 100% repost of someone else's problem from not that long ago. Have a bit of a deep search. See what you can find. IIRC, it was a f**king bizarre outcome - not as expected. Without that, I would simply advise you to break out the wiring diagram (for which I have a whole thread), the multimeter and some patience and tenacity. The pixies are supposed to flow from point A to point B, via the switches and the globes. If they do not, it is because something is not correct along the route.

It's closer to synchronised masturbation.

Nah. The lower mount eye is tapered. The fat end goes against the upright.

Maybe. Take that coilover off, and hold the outer edge of that washer in the space where the new washer would need to go. You won't be able to get the washer over the pin on that side, because the pin is too fat at the base end, so you have to ad hoc it. Anyway, put the edge in there and see if it is thick enough. If it is not thick enough, then you're going to need more, and at that point you'd start poking feeler gauges or something equivalent in there as well to try to work out how much more you need. If it's too thick, then you can poke feeler gauges in the gap between the upright and the coilover to see how much thinner it could be. Keep in mind though, that the clearance is not constant. As the suspension moves up and down, and perhaps accepts fore-aft loadings and shocks and whatnot, that gap could be a bit variable. So the gap will need to be larger than what it appears at any given time or suspension position. I wouldn't use spacers myself. I tried it initially, and had a problem caused by material spec (my first spacers were actually convenient Toyota engine parts that turned out to be really hard, and therefore brittle and broke within a couple of km on the first drive). I then got myself some appropriate washers, but...these are now sitting on the bench (or maybe they're in the centre console) because I put my big boy pants on and ground the coilover bottom mount to make it clear. Also, FWIW, the recommendation to remove material from the coilover mount is also the opinion of the manufcaturer/supplier of my coilovers. There is plenty of material there to remove, and you will not weaken them in any meaningful way by doing so.

Yes, this is common with "modern" coilovers (on R chassis cars) that are made with what amounts to "off the shelf" bottom mounts. ie, the bottom mount is the same diameter as it would be on any other car, but on an R chassis, it is just a smidge too large and touches. You have two choices. Find a large washer that is not very thick, or, remove some thickness on a belt sander if you have to, and space the damper out on the lower mount. The fit of the hole in the washer needs to be very close to the larger diameter of the pin mount. Put a flap disc or grinding wheel onto an angle grinder and remove just enough material from that lower corner of the damper's lower mount to make it clear. Then repaint black after test fitting to make sure you've taken off enough. I did the latter.

Very thin end of the wedge.

Because there's more profit in making it into shitty sugary foods. Pure and simple.

Which injectors did you end up tuning on? The biggies or the littlies?

Por que no los dos?