Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey trying to fit my old wheels that fit fine on my old skyline (94 gtst) on to my newer one (96) but after i fit i rolled out and then there was rubbing -__- the wheels are 18x 8.5(235) front and 18x 9.5 (245)rear offset is +37 all around they clear the calipers but i think the control arm was very close on the front lik few mm from the tire. All my old car had was rolled gaurds and coils this one has king springs on the front and i think it is to low with them, would puttin stock springs back on the front fix this problem? will they fit again?

ch33rz

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179861-do-i-need-to-roll-my-gaurds/
Share on other sites

hey trying to fit my old wheels that fit fine on my old skyline (94 gtst) on to my newer one (96) but after i fit i rolled out and then there was rubbing

So roll them already!

would puttin stock springs back on the front fix this problem? will they fit again?

Possibly, but if they rub now, they CAN rub with higher springs, it just takes a bigger bump for it to happen.

So in summary, roll them :laugh:

ok sounds good, should i just put the stock springs back in the front because it only had kings in the front not the back and then roll them as well and just wait for coils. Also anyone tell me how much it is to roll, i was told go tech9 see them any other ideas iam sure some people on the forum have there own roller or something...

usually about $50/corner.

how low was your old car compared to the new one? there is no difference in guard width/hub in S1/S2, so if it fitted your old car, there is no reason why it wont fit the new one (with the same mods of course)

well i think the front is a bit lower easy lik 1/2 inch but the back isnt so i think stock springs needed and then a roll. they are back with there rightfull owner i should never have sold them in the first place they are to sexy with the silver paint :P

soooo if anyone has some stock front springs laying around they wouldnt mind selling/giving me you know what to do ^_^

Edited by phenline

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...