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

    • 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...