Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. Mainly starting this up because after reading through a lot of stuff I'm no closer to knowing the truth.

I've called two different coilover makers now and they've both said according to their records/knowledge the RS4-S is no different to any other Stagea, yet I've head a lot of people say the rear is a totally unique setup.

So what is the deal??

dont even get me started about parts for an rs4s. Car has been in the workshop for the last week and a half while they try and source castor rods/bushes and a tie rod end

NOTE - IF YOU NEED A TIE ROD END JUST BUY GENUINE, THERE IS NO OTHER SUBSTITUTE (I know this because i have found out the hard way, bought 2 different tie rod ends and they weren't right)

also i was lead to believe that we have an r33 gtr gearbox, thus i thought that an extension housing seal would be the same as an r33gtr gearbox. NOT TRUE, once again tried every bearing shop, nothing, have to wait for genuine now :D

Isn't the R33 GTR gearbox only on the 260RS?? My guess the RS4S would use something like the R33 GTS4 gearbox...but then again I'm only assuming here

Edited by BigDirtyJase

I can confirm the following on a Type S Stagea.

It definitely has a GTR Rear end e.g. LSD and suspension mounting (Forks) and also the same Hicas. I would be interested in finding out about the gearbox though because I always thought they had a GTR one standard. Is there any way of finding this out by looking at the gearbox?

I can confirm the following on a Type S Stagea.

It definitely has a GTR Rear end e.g. LSD and suspension mounting (Forks) and also the same Hicas. I would be interested in finding out about the gearbox though because I always thought they had a GTR one standard. Is there any way of finding this out by looking at the gearbox?

I'm with the above on this, because AFAIK, the RS-Four S and 260RS both use a complete R33 GT-R rear cradle. I would have assumed that the RS-Four S would use the GT-R box too, though, unless the R33 GTS4 box is the same anyway...

Probably the best way is to get some VINs and do a cross-check on the FAST system.

Pretty sure there are some differences in the rear cradle between R33 GTR and 260RS: we used a GTR rear cradle in my car, and the track is definitely wider than a 260RS. Also, had to customise the axles to fit the Stagea. Not sure to what extent they are different, but that's what I was told about my car....

*edit* That said, the SK suspension package fit straight in, so maybe it's just the axles?

Hmmm this is interesting stuff. I use Greddy Type S R33 GTR coilovers in my Stagea they fit perfectly (Other than modifying rear strut tops and changing the rate of the rear spring, fat arse wagon vs light coupe) I would have thought if there was significant difference in the rear cradle maybe I would have noticed it here???? What is the difference in the axles is it to do with length / diameter ??

I am told that it was length: we used a GTR axle on one side, (which I think was off the opposite side on a GTR), and a modified Z32 axle on the other. This is what I remember being told, so it may not be entirely accurate... However, park my car next to any other Stagea with R34 rims, and the difference is quite visible.

So my best bet would be to get some coilovers for a R33 GTR and get them modified (rear spring rate)??

That would be my recommendation (I believe even the Sydney Kid kits used R33GTST rear shocks with spring rates specific to the Stagea.)

There are quite a few posts in the suspension area regarding the coilovers and i have posted my setup there but basicly in summary after quite a bit of research I came up with the following formula.

Depending on the spring rate of the coilovers you select I would suggest getting the same rate or slightly lower in the rear. When I was researching suspension for my car the Nismo Stagea kits for the RS260 were around Front 6.0 Rear 6.4 and most other kits I found were between 6 - 10 kg often with the back been a slightly lower rate than the front.

My rule of thumb was to go somewhere around the middle, I currently run 8kg front and 6.8kg rear springs. I really like the ride and it is spot on for my needs, I do live in melbourne and do alot of freeway driving though. If you lived in a rural area and travelled on rough or gravel roads you may find that softer springs are a bit more comfortable.

Hope that helps

i still run the factory springs with bilsteins, i'm pretty sure it is R32GTR fronts and the rear is probably R32/R33 GTR but heasmans should be able to advise on the correct rear shock. order them with extra circlip grooves you can adjust the height accordingly.

the factory spring rates with the already larger factory swaybars (compared to auto versions) is pretty reasonable but going to larger front and same sized (but solid) rear bar is a pretty street combo.

  • 3 weeks later...
ISC N1 coilovers are made specifically for RS4 and RS4-S (no modification to rear top mount needed).

Ryan-0413804117

I like the price (cheaper than entry-level TEIN & Nismo S-Tune), and based on your website, I take it that you could you offer the Stagea parts with springs rated at say, 6/5.5?

(I'm no expert on the best rate for a street Stagea, but I've read posts by others who suggest that the 4-4.5 range spring rate isn't really worth upgrading to, so I'm open to suggestions!)

Edited by BensDR30

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...