Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Specifics;

Car : 1996 R33 GTST

Owned : 3.5 years

Clock : 175,000k (purchased at 105,000k)

Suspension : standard, 17 inch rims

Funny how one thing leads to another....

I was measuring the ride height of my car today as I was thinking of getting the SydKid group buy and lowering it a tad. As I was doing this I noticed a screw sticking out of the rear tyre. I then preceeded to remove the screw hoping that it did not go in too deep. Not so! However, I was prepared and fitted the space saver (not a good look) while the tyre went flat. As I inspected the tyre I noticed that the inside of the tyre was quite worn (with an undulating pattern to the wear) while the outside was still fine. I checked the other rear tyre and same deal.

Now, 6 months after purchasing the car I had a similar problem with the front tyres. I took the car to Pedders and gave them a lot of money to fix the problem. What I got;

1. Camber adjustment bushes

2. Caster adjustment bushes

3. Wheel alignment (all four)

4. Plus two new front tyres

And to date the front has been sweet with no uneven wear on the tyres.

So, I checked the forum and it could be many things but I'm leaning towards an incorrect toe adjustment. I thought I'd take it back to Pedders to check but I noticed something else. The ride height on the right rear (if your facing the front of the car) is 380mm but the ride height on the left rear is 370mm. The ride height for the right front is 370mm but 375mm for the left front. I'm measuring centre of hub to guard height. Now I'm not sure if this means anything but seems a little strange. And yes, the garage floor is pretty flat. Wondered if this could be a suspension issue (ie: shot shockies)? Or something worse?

Anyway, I need to be mobile and will be getting 2 new tyres fitted to the back and then take it into a suspension specialist at first opportunity. Will post any conclusions once they become available but is anyone is able to shed any light on why ride height might be different?

I noticed a similar thing in my car as well...

The right side (the side closest to the exhaust pipe) is a bit higher than the left, although the 2 front ones are about the same (although I used a crappy ruler to measure it so it could be off a bit).

Good luck with the fixing keep us informed on how you go, once I have money I probably get my mechanic to fix it too...

Thanks to those that replied.

Got 2 new rear tyres today. Wheel guy says it could be suspension as they looked quite shagged. I plan on getting the whiteline group buy when Sydney Kid gets back late Jan so will save my pennies for this.

BTW, the wear was only bad on the tyre closest to the exhaust so problem is just affecting one tyre.

  • 4 months later...

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...