Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeh basically as the title says i have been chasing a manual rwd stagea for a while now but to no prevail.

but seeing tho the AWD can be made into RWD quite easilly i then decided RWD wasnt a nesessaty.

then i decided im going to do sum sort of engine conversion eventually into my stagea so changing from auto to manual at the time wont cost a great deal. compared to the price diff between auto and manual stageas atm.

so i just decided any old awd auto/manual stagea will do me fine.

but cnt decide between series 1 and 2.... was the major differences apart from the lights in the grill?

yeh basically as the title says i have been chasing a manual rwd stagea for a while now but to no prevail.

but seeing tho the AWD can be made into RWD quite easilly i then decided RWD wasnt a nesessaty.

then i decided im going to do sum sort of engine conversion eventually into my stagea so changing from auto to manual at the time wont cost a great deal. compared to the price diff between auto and manual stageas atm.

so i just decided any old awd auto/manual stagea will do me fine.

but cnt decide between series 1 and 2.... was the major differences apart from the lights in the grill?

There is just such a thread on the next page (scroll down to the bottom and click on next page). BTW it is not easy to convert AWD into RWD ...if you're going to repower it just get a n/a car which are mostly RWD.

The RWD and AWD stagea's are quite different structually, and while you CAN run an AWD stagea in RWD mode, there is no real advantage because you are still carrying around all the extra weight of the attessa system. You COULD get your hands on a NA version, but if you are in Australia you will never be able to get it complied as they don't get covered under our SEVS ruling.

i'd get a s1 because they are cheaper and look alot better :P s2 fronts are shocking, definately a turn off in my book anyway.

*gets ready for flaming* :teehee:

if your changing from auto to manual u can just use a rb25 gtst box and it will get rid of the tf case, and an engine conversion will say goodbye to the front diff and sump arrangment. Then all u need is to pull the cv joints out of the front axles and just leave the part that bolts into the hub to hold the wheel bearing in and its done. Oh and remove the atessa pumps above the rear diff if u want.

i'd probably just get the rwd version if u had the choice between the two, but converting a 4wd to 2wd isnt a big drama at all.

:):P:spank::rant:

hehehe nice!

i do like the ser1 front, but its gotta be ser2 rs4s FTW!!!

if ur gonna go manual rwd then i dont think its worth getting a 4wd auto. i think u can get rwd turbo stags. it would save alot of work. but i guess if its cheaper and u have the skills then go for it. just dont forget to post up all ur wicked skid videos. :D

Edited by Raysboostin
its gotta be ser2 rs4s FTW!!!

:P

I think the rwd manual thing has been covered before, and from what my rather damaged

memory can recall, rwd stagea's werent available in manual??? im sure someone will correct

me if im wrong!

so there are NA stageas out there? but they cant be complied in aus? so theres no point in me owning one then ay cause i live in QLD...

well my eventual goals are to put a twin charged ls1 into my stagea and RWD it, so yeh i wuld prefer a stock RWD turbo or non turbo dnt phase me, and auto/manual isnt to much of a problem. rwd > awd is my major concern atm and yeh trying to find a rwd aint easy.

well, in that case you wil DEFINITELY want a RWD stagea complied in australia (the RWD stageas have a completely different shock tower arrangement and a little more room in the engine bay - this is what you will need for a wide angle LS1)

Stageas were offered all the way down to a RWD only powered by a NA RB20E

*shudders*

although why you would want one that spec is a little beyond me....

I'd say the single biggest difference between s1 & s2 is a HUGE 60NM MORE TORQUE in the s2 and at 1000RPM LESS!!

Basically its going to get up and go a lot easier and feel a lot more effortless. The extra ~20kw is just icing on the cake.

In comparison to both, the M35 is only ~30kg heavier and has ~70NM more torque again than the s2, and at the same revs as where the s2 makes its peak torque. So as you can imagine the M35 feels a lot more nimble than the s2.

Torque makes a big difference, particularly in such a heavy car. It also is one of the reasons for the better fuel economy. :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...