Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I haven't fitted it yet. But i was told to use the 3rd hole from the end. it's a 24mm bar and i will be using the std links. So i will just have to wait and see where they reach too. Also is it safe to remove the castor rod while the car is sitting on the wheels? Or does it need to be jacked up?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4849804
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I haven't fitted it yet. But i was told to use the 3rd hole from the end. it's a 24mm bar and i will be using the std links. So i will just have to wait and see where they reach too. Also is it safe to remove the castor rod while the car is sitting on the wheels? Or does it need to be jacked up?

Remove them will the car jacked up - it would make the whole process harder by doing it with wheels on the ground. With standard links like mine, im pretty sure you will find they only reach to the rear two holes - wonder what the point of having the other two holes are.

I fitted mine last night and had several annoying hassles, issues were all related to manufacturer incompetence -

-One of the round bushes on rear link was split

-Stud was supplied instead of a bolt

-Nyloc nuts for the top of the front links were the wrong size

-Two holes on the front bar were not drilled cleanly so the bolts would not fit through

Perhaps they have a 2 year old packing the kits?

I had to steal parts of a friends spare bar to fit them up, will be following this up to get replacement link kits.

Attached are pics of the faulty/wrong parts (white nyloc is incorrect one that was supplied - correct size is the blue nyloc nut)

post-2685-1254099473_thumb.jpg

post-2685-1254099477_thumb.jpg

post-2685-1254099483_thumb.jpg

post-2685-1254099487_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4850081
Share on other sites

I was going to put the front up on ramps so i could get under there. Just so that way i could tighten everything up at ride hight. But i dont wanna pull the castor rod out if it's going to make the wheel's unstable up on the ramps.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4850201
Share on other sites

I was going to put the front up on ramps so i could get under there. Just so that way i could tighten everything up at ride hight. But i dont wanna pull the castor rod out if it's going to make the wheel's unstable up on the ramps.

The only parts that you really need to worry about doing up at ride height are the castor rods, hence I would do it all on the ground, then drive the car up on ramps with the rods loosely on, then tighten.

You need the front wheels removed to fit the front swaybar, its very hard to get to the swaybar links with them on. You can fit the rear bar with the wheels on and rear jacked up. Might be hard on ramps as there is weight on the suspension arms and hence they will be hard to manipulate when fitting.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4850206
Share on other sites

Well the fronts done. I jacked it up and pulled the wheels off to get easyer access and dropped it back down to ride hight to tighten everything back up. But the std link could only reach the 2 end holes.

Thats what I found, however apparently the links will reach the front two holes while the car is at normal ride height, ie you need to do it on ramps or on a hoist. Have not tried this yet but will try on the weekend.

You have to tighten the castor arms with the car at ride height? Shit i didn't do that, why's that? Just to make sure you get it tight?

This is because the bush is held tight ie doesnt rotate inside the rod once you tighten it up - once you let the car down the bush will be twisted at normal ride height. By tightening at normal ride height the bush is not twisted while at normal height, only as the suspension moves up and down.

This is the case with normal rubber bushes on the car, not 100% sure if the same applied to urethane bushes in the front castor rods but it seems that way since the centre will not twist and the bush will not twist in the outer housing either... If you have castor rods with spherical ends then you dont need to worry about it in this case.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4851460
Share on other sites

This is because the bush is held tight ie doesnt rotate inside the rod once you tighten it up - once you let the car down the bush will be twisted at normal ride height. By tightening at normal ride height the bush is not twisted while at normal height, only as the suspension moves up and down.

This is the case with normal rubber bushes on the car, not 100% sure if the same applied to urethane bushes in the front castor rods but it seems that way since the centre will not twist and the bush will not twist in the outer housing either... If you have castor rods with spherical ends then you dont need to worry about it in this case.

Hmm makes sense. Maybe ill check over mine, problem is there's no way my car will get up ramps. Will have to do it another way.

Edited by PM-R33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4851775
Share on other sites

Hey I went to get my Selby Adjustable Swaybars fitted today and the rear one appears to have the wrong type of link.

I was given the "Double Eye Type Link" but by the look of the mounting area on the car i need a "Eye/Pin Type Link"

Can somebody confirm this for me?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4855191
Share on other sites

Hey I went to get my Selby Adjustable Swaybars fitted today and the rear one appears to have the wrong type of link.

I was given the "Double Eye Type Link" but by the look of the mounting area on the car i need a "Eye/Pin Type Link"

Can somebody confirm this for me?

Assuming you have an r33 gtst then yes you are correct, you were sent the wrong links.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/284439-swaybars/page/4/#findComment-4855334
Share on other sites

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...