Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guyz, just bought a r33 a few weeks ago and loving it.

i just dont like the way the front looks.

the front looks like its higher than the rear.

i can stick 1 finger between the rear tyre and gaurd.

the front i can stick 3 fingers (like a whore).

anyone know why?

i am not liking the looks.

anything easy i can do?

i have attached some pics. will take some of the coilover so someone can try and figure out for me if they are adjustable ones.

cheers.

love u all

vish.

Rear tyre (nice)

dsc01098qs.jpg

front (not so nice)

dsc01097d.jpg

dsc01094rq.jpg

Yeh except final cost would be around $2000 considering freight to get it from PERTH to Sydney...

Vish any suspension shop will be able to compress your springs mate, but that's actually just how the car sits. The rear guard is lower than the front, same as on a Statesman if you've seen em... Back tyres are half covered by the guards, but front tyres are clearly visible (not as extreme in your case obviously). If you draw a straight line between the rear guard and the front guard you will see what i'm talking about

lol TURBZ, as hanaldo sed i am in Perth.

Thanx for the info Martin.

Now i feel better, since u sed its normal. hahaha

I never knew that the rear gaurd was lower.

yeah maybe i will just take it to a suspension place and lower the front.

Thank you for the replies guyz :)

Yeh when they compress springs they just put a spring compressor clamp on them instead of physically cutting them.

Your best option (if you don't want to go all out with coilover suspension), would be to replace the springs with lowered king springs. Not that much more expensive than chopping or compressing, but definitely a better option.

You probably want to get your springs reset, which I guess is what people mean when they say "compressing".

http://autospeed.com.au/cms/title_Resettin...82/article.html

Changing the front height may well affect handling in a negative way if you go too far.

what bout what Martin said? replace with king springs. will that affect handling? dont want it too low. just the same height as the back so it looks level.

Does affect handling but in a good way. Stiffer springs = less body roll and better handling. As said, you don't want to lower the front too much, but a little bit shouldn't make a difference.

I'd have a chat with a good Suspension firm there in Perth and get them to do an initial evaluation including checking over what you already have > then commit to King Springs or at the time talk to Just Jap and/or others there in Perth about possibly replacing the springs with Tanabe brand or other instead. I find that Tanabe progressive springs are very good on my car as well as lowering the car by 20mm.

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...