Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks for the PM - I'll reply back shortly.

I think the early GTR32 boxes have slightly different internals and synchros to the later ones and also different to the 33s...

I remember reading that here but can't confirm.

will require more investigation...

thanks for the PM - I'll reply back shortly.

I think the early GTR32 boxes have slightly different internals and synchros to the later ones and also different to the 33s...

I remember reading that here but can't confirm.

will require more investigation...

No probs

Oh! That would definitely good to know lol. Mine is an 89

Brockaz is without "the list"

No probs

Oh! That would definitely good to know lol. Mine is an 89

Brockaz is without "the list"

i have "the list"...the parts cost $1300 trade.

they have gone up over $600 since i did mine...ouch

these boxes are not as cheap as a lot of people assume.

budget for $7000+ if you dont already have a 2nd hand gearbox and over $6000+ if you do.

Edited by DiRTgarage

Did a search...again...and found the problem. Previous posts claim only late model 33 g'box parts are available. It also eluded that the 5 speed kit may be the only option for an early 32 box anyway.old thread. I do remember talking to Ant at XSpeed and he did mention something about using 33 parts to upgrade with an OSG kit

Hey Paul...If you could post that up that would be much appreciated :thumbsup: the 1300 sounds familiar

correct, nissan have superseeded the earlier model parts on only series 3 r33 ones are now available. but they are interchangeble on the older boxes.

not good to hear the price of these still going up. we might end up with ppg dog box after all :D

Thanks for the confirmation Duncan,

not good to hear the price of these still going up. we might end up with ppg dog box after all :)

Greenline are running a special on the 5 speed at the moment

Payment confirmed yesterday...kit left Osaka today...gotta be happy with that :D

Sometimes it a suck it and see approach...the list changes from box to box..i.e early 32 boxes require a different list to later 32 boxes and early 33 boxes the list is different again...its only the series 3 boxes 97 that are right and dont need the list.

I think mine need 7 different parts to be ordered to get it right.

The kit has arrived. :( unfortunately I'm OS at the moment so I cant unwrap it to see if this list is there. The shop that is building it has done a few before so they should be able to sort it out. Mines an early 32 box so it will need everything I guess.

let us know how it turns out mate and if you are ok with it I'd be curious to see a copy of the list and the prices.

I'm sure you will love the new box. :ermm:

Thanks Paul and Richard.

The prices...mmm $1300. I'll have to see a mate and get it trade. I'll scan a copy for you and the list will go in the Parts thread. I fear for what it would be "over the counter". :P

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...