Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I have done a search and read a bunch of very helpful posts (thanks SK!)

First a bit of background. I have bought and installed a set of HSD HR coilovers for my R33 GTST. The spring rates are roughly 430 pounds in the fronts and 350 in the rears (i do have the actual rates written down somewhere)...so not too hard but a bit harder than the rates SK uses on his R32 race car.

I recently lowered the spring seat and reduced the preloading on the spring to next to nothing....just enough to hold the spring in place. I had an improvement in the ride comfort for small to medium differences in the road surface....however going over deep potholes and speed humps the ride is terrible....i attribute this from what i've read on here to be the car hitting the bump stops.

So I guess from this i have to preload the spring more. I thought about starting with 4mm extra height on the spring seat as a starting point.

Anyway my questions are:

1) Is it normal to set coilovers up with a degree of preload on the springs for an R33 GTST? (I know this is a very loose question)

2) The rebound is adjustable on the top of the struts and indicates an L for adusting the knob left and an H for adjusting the knob to the right....now i didn't receive any documentation on adjusting the coilovers when i received them....so I thought L would make it softer and H would make it harder....have i got this right?

3) do you think the 4mm of extra spring seat height is a good place to start?

Cheers for your advice

Morlock

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/116472-preloading-springs-on-coilovers/
Share on other sites

My 22 cents (that 20 cents plus GST) worth........

1. Preload has zero effect on the spring rate, it doesn't matter how much preload you add the spring rate is still 430 lbs per inch in the front and 350 lbs per inch in the rear.

When you put the weight of the car on the springs, they have preload anyway. So the little bit that you add by adjusting the lower spring seat is irrelevant.

Some simple numbers;

R33GTST weighs say 1400 kgs

65% front = ~900 kgs (1980 lbs)

The front spring rate is 430 lbs per inch

So 1980 / 2 / 430 = 2.3" (58.5 mm) of spring compression to hold up the front

35% rear = ~500 kgs (1100 lbs)

The rear spring rate is 350 lbs per inch

So 1100 / 2 / 350 = 1.6" (40 mm) of spring compression to hold up the rear

2. Clockwise is usually high damping level. Give it try, you should be able to pick the difference beween full soft and full hard pretty easily.

3. Preload affects the ride height, so you set the lower spring seat position to achieve the desired height.

:ban: Cheers :D

Edited by Sydneykid
Thanks SK

Will having more preload on the spring cause the shock to be overworked? I only ask this because i was advised by the vendor that "too much" preload on the spring would make the damper work harder.

Cheers

Rubbish :P

:) cheers :P

Edited by Sydneykid

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...