Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have a 24mm whiteline front bar and it's ok, i've had a good look at that bit of the sump over the last 6 months or so as i've been climbing under the car making various repairs. My sway bar looks to sit a lot further forward though, closer to the leading edge of the sump rather than back over the shallow section as yours is.

is that pic taken with the wheels carrying the weight of the car?

Maybe elongate the links to effectively rotate the whole bar clockwise (when looking in the direction of the pics) but that may lead to issues with the other part of the sump when unloading both wheels....

Yeh, the pics are with the car on a hoist. It is a 27mm swaybar.

Where the bar is at full droop with the links disconnected should be where the bar stis relative to the sump. as soon as you connect the links and drop the car. Links are fully extended and the bar pretty parallel with the ground so, maybe its an R33 bar or something. Perhaps they are similar enough that you can fit them, but different enough to have this result :geek:

LOL, maybe this is why my shocks bump stops are so healthy, swaybar hits sump before the shocks get near the full travel. Is now making me wonder whether this is the reason my car was locking brakes so wildly as i was effectively limiting front suspension travel under brakes :)

Anyway, off they come...nto sure what to do with the sump. Probably not a problem, just dont like havigng a sump that looks this way :) Then have to thnk about what to do for a new swaybar, might just go a Cusco fixed one and modify it for adjustability...

yeah, I reckon piss it off. grab a cusco or arc bar. they are hollow so nice and light too. and I can bet one of my nuts it wont foul on anything and will be a snack to fit.

when my nuggie is back on the road i'm going to toss my current bars and go cusco too.

That's a good one Roy, never seen that happen before. Is the picture taken with the car at normal ride height? Because if it is, the bar is not in its usual position in relation to the sump, it should be rotated further forward. What links are you using? If they are too short, it will rotate the bar towards the sump. Then, when the suspension compresses, the bar will rotate further than intended and hit the sump. The other possible issue is ride height and how far the suspension compresses before the bump stops limit the travel. What static height is it and how much travel before bump stop contact?

Cheers

Gary

These swaybars have been on the car with the Bilsteins and the Teins.

Ride Height with Bilsteins

462DSC07641.JPG

Ride Height with Teins

gallery_462_50_508080.jpg

I am using std links. When they were delivered there werent any, you said there should have been. I rang Whiteline and they said use the std, the swaybars dont come with the links. So i did as they woudlnt even sell me the links as they said to use the std. :P

So possibly the links :wave: The photo is with the car on a hoist. The Teins actually have more travel then the R33 Bilsteins that were in the front of my car. Bump stops are fine, dont get near them with the ride height and springs i run.

Ah, the joys of modifyign cars. lol, two steps forward about twelve backwards :ermm:

These swaybars have been on the car with the Bilsteins and the Teins.

I am using std links. When they were delivered there werent any, you said there should have been. I rang Whiteline and they said use the std, the swaybars dont come with the links. So i did as they woudlnt even sell me the links as they said to use the std. :P

So possibly the links :wave: The photo is with the car on a hoist. The Teins actually have more travel then the R33 Bilsteins that were in the front of my car. Bump stops are fine, dont get near them with the ride height and springs i run.

Ah, the joys of modifyign cars. lol, two steps forward about twelve backwards :ermm:

Standard links are OK, as long as they are standard R32GTST links, not some other model.

Sorry I am not very good at identifying ride height from pictures, I need a tape measure to get the job done.

More travel (from the Teins) is actually a bad sign, increasing the travel (compression) rotates the swaybar towards the sump more than less travel. Just another reason why I never use short shocks. Add that to regressive positive camber curves and bump steer.

The solution is to rotate the sump dip on the swaybar, which is a simple $50 mod, send the bar up and allow 2 days .

Cheers

Gary

Standard links are OK, as long as they are standard R32GTST links, not some other model.

Sorry I am not very good at identifying ride height from pictures, I need a tape measure to get the job done.

More travel (from the Teins) is actually a bad sign, increasing the travel (compression) rotates the swaybar towards the sump more than less travel. Just another reason why I never use short shocks. Add that to regressive positive camber curves and bump steer.

The solution is to rotate the sump dip on the swaybar, which is a simple $50 mod, send the bar up and allow 2 days .

Cheers

Gary

If thats the case then i will be throwing the swaybar to the shitter, but surely there is an easier fix or cause for the problem. The links were std GTSt (to the best of my knowledge). I cant tell you what the ride height it. I can tell you it is within a few mm of what Whiteline used to have on the pdf file on their website.

What you say about more stroke being a bad thing? I would rather suspension parts not bottom out on bump stops to stop swaybars from bottoming out on sumps. I hear what you are saying, but the car used to bottom out at speed on big bumps making it a real handful at places like DECA and the back track. So i am not talking unlimited suspension travel the point coils bind or come in contact, just enough travel to give the spring enough time to do its thing when punting it in autocrosses.

Not going to get into a debate over suspension with you. I am sure you know more and ways around everything. Fact is i dont. I like your idea of some longer aftermarket links. I will try that before i swap/repair the sump. Hopefully that will fix the problem. I suppose its possible that the std links i am using are off another model car or something. Fark knows, the guy was wrecking an R32 GTSt, but????

If thats the case then i will be throwing the swaybar to the shitter, but surely there is an easier fix or cause for the problem. The links were std GTSt (to the best of my knowledge). I cant tell you what the ride height it. I can tell you it is within a few mm of what Whiteline used to have on the pdf file on their website.

What you say about more stroke being a bad thing? I would rather suspension parts not bottom out on bump stops to stop swaybars from bottoming out on sumps. I hear what you are saying, but the car used to bottom out at speed on big bumps making it a real handful at places like DECA and the back track. So i am not talking unlimited suspension travel the point coils bind or come in contact, just enough travel to give the spring enough time to do its thing when punting it in autocrosses.

Not going to get into a debate over suspension with you. I am sure you know more and ways around everything. Fact is i dont. I like your idea of some longer aftermarket links. I will try that before i swap/repair the sump. Hopefully that will fix the problem. I suppose its possible that the std links i am using are off another model car or something. Fark knows, the guy was wrecking an R32 GTSt, but????

I know that you know enough to figure out what works for you, so I just throw out the information and you absorb what you can. You are spot on that increasing the travel helps with impact absorbtion, but it introduces other problems. As I mentioned above, that being bump steer and regressive camber change. You could engineer out the bump steer and correct the camber curves, as John is doing on the Zed. But that is time consuming, requires some equipment and experience to overcome. There is a simpler solution. What I would suggest is that raising the ride height for those tracks is a superior solution, that's what we do at Sandown for example for the huge bump at the end of the pit straight. It's a lot simpler and less fraught with compromises than the alternatives.

But some people (not you) cling fanatically to the "low is always better" philosophy, even when it is obviously the route of the problem.

Cheers

Gary

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

    • You know how your car rolled through a fence in your last jacking escapade? Scissor jacks increase the likely hood of that sort of thing happening immensely!
    • http://calfinn.com.au/product/1500kg-standard-trolley-jack-cj-2t-c/1500kg-standard-trolley-jack-cj-2t-c   I have this and fits under a S3 33 GTR with no issues. Purchased in 2009 and not one issue. It was $950 back then. Not cheap but something so important isn’t worth cheaping out on.
    • Just trying to get my head around this. At 5psi of boost, you turn on your wmi pump, and then you're using a 3000cc injector, to allow flow upto the actual engine, where you have your 6x200cc injectors and a 500cc injector. If the above is correct, what advantage are you obtaining by having the 3000cc injector blocking flow, is this just incase a line breaks between that injector and the motor you can stop flow immediately? Or are the 6x200cc and 500cc less injectors and just spray nozzle?
    • Welcome! New member myself, but I had an R33 back in 2002. Best advice I could give, based on my experience: if you're running the factory turbo, be very conservative with boost. I made the mistake of just fiddling around with the boost controller and cranking the boost for fun, and the end result was my intake pipes popping off frequently from the constant deluge of oil that was being blown into the recirc by the stressed-out turbo, which itself was siphoning oil from the engine and farting it out both sides of its centre bearing (or something to that effect). If I could do it all again, I would have gotten a new turbo and had a tune dialled in professionally and then just left it alone! Funny you mention the metal shavings in the gearbox, as I had the same thing - the probe plug (magnetic drain plug, essentially) would come out caked with shavings. At least it was doing its job. Not sure if that's just sacrificial wear and part of the deal, or if my gearbox was shagged, but I wasn't abusing it. Enjoy the R33 - they're a dying breed, and if they weren't $35k+ on CarSales in Queensland, I might have picked up one of those again, instead of the 370GT I own now (though I'm loving the 370GT, that big 3.7L V6 just hits different).
    • Howdy folks. I owned an R33 back in 2002, which was thoroughly beyond my capacity (financially speaking) to maintain/insure, so we parted ways in 2004. Fast forward 21 years (to literally yesterday, in fact) and I'm now the proud owner of a 2007 V36 370GT. I'm happily surprised by how much power the VQ37VHR makes, compared to the RB25DET, considering the latter is turbocharged. I had planned to add a turbo at some point but I'm on the fence about whether I'll even need it (though I do love the sudden onset of extra torque). Any other 370GT owners around the traps, I'd love to hear about your experiences with this car (good and bad).
×
×
  • Create New...