Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just noticed in some of the threads, people are running their cars lower at the rear compared to the front. Ie, from centre of the wheel to the guard might be say 340mm and the front will be 350mm...

just wondering what the idea behind running different heights, front to back, is?? I think even the SK group buy might specificy different heights front/back

EDIT: sorry, thought i was posting in the suspension section, mods feel free to move if you think it's not in the best area

it's because the front guards are typically cut 20mm higher than the rear.

So by running the center to guard heights 10mm less at the rear you actually end up with about 10mm of rake as the front is lower

Measuring and quoting comparable heights front to rear by the wheel gaps to the top of the guards is a bit off. Its usually and more accurately measured from under the body/chassis where a part is level with the ground front to rear eg sill panel.

Thanks for asking the question SS8.

Measuring and quoting comparable heights front to rear by the wheel gaps to the top of the guards is a bit off. Its usually and more accurately measured from under the body/chassis where a part is level with the ground front to rear eg sill panel.

Thanks for asking the question SS8.

It allows people to ignore the tyre diamater. Just about every Skyline ever built is running something different. They may only be 10mm out or whatever but it is enough to make a nonsense of the measurement. Unfortunately it makes the camber settings influence the result where previously they would not.

Unfortunately it makes the camber settings influence the result where previously they would not.

How so? I'm struggling to picture it... Camber makes the wheel pivot about the lower ball joint (for upper arm adjustment), so there's bugger all height change in the centre of the wheel, not even 1mm.

260DET: Sill measurements are best used to measure rake, but for actual ride height, centre of wheel to guard is better. As djr81 said, it neglects all differences in rolling diameters, so this includes things like wheel/tyre size and even tread wear (new tyres have 8mm tread)

If you measure a stock car, you will probably find that the measurements are less on the back than they are on the front. When you lower a car, it is usually best to lower the car an equal amount front and rear. That is why you have probably observed this.

Edited by Thunderbolt
..............................................

260DET: Sill measurements are best used to measure rake, but for actual ride height, centre of wheel to guard is better. As djr81 said, it neglects all differences in rolling diameters, so this includes things like wheel/tyre size and even tread wear (new tyres have 8mm tread)

Get it now, thanks for the explanation.

It seems some people get confused, I've heard the 'lower at the back' claim before concerning rake. And thought WTF :dry:

I THINK the rule of thumb is lower front = better turn in. Quite happy to be corrected though.

I think it's to do with the centre of gravity heights front to rear, but then obviously suspension geometry starts playing a pretty big part in it too.

I THINK the rule of thumb is lower front = better turn in. Quite happy to be corrected though.

I think it's to do with the centre of gravity heights front to rear, but then obviously suspension geometry starts playing a pretty big part in it too.

Upside down Miss Jane.

Lowering the front will tend to generate more initial & indeed midcorner understeer.

Raising it will tend to allow the car to turn in better.

Sometimes it is a matter of balancing the turn in with the mid corner grip.

Rake helps the aero, providing of course it does not put aero aids such as wings out of alignment. High back particularly helps beneficial air flow under and out the back of the car.

ok ok... i haven't heard of rake before

so rake refers to the height of the front relative to the rear? So could you say a car has "positive" rake if the front or rear is higher?

To the cars have a default rake from factory??

So it's not such a bad thing to have the rear a little lower compared to the front? I like this as i've got a real low front spoiler, but my rear guards have the biggest "gap" between them and the tyre. So in terms of wheel guard gap, i could even it out a bit, but actually have the rear lower.

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...