Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

HI guys, great forums here!

I have just bought a '93 R33 GTS-T, and want to replace the skinny stock tyres on it with some decent rubber.

I am considering 235/45 on 17s at the front (on 8" rims), and 255/40 on 17s at the rear (on 9" rims).

My two biggest concerns are that if I go with the general consensus and 235/45/R17 on the front and 255/40/R17 on the rear I will

A) get a pretty harsh ride and

B) Get into grief trying to do a hard launch or powerslide with 'diff bounce' (not the right term, but all I can think of now).

At the moment the stock tyres allow me to do fantastic, smooth powerslides and launches without the wheels bouncing up and down like crazy and costing me time (and perhaps killing the diff)... what is the likelehood of having that problem with 255/40's on the rear?

If it occurs, do I need to go to a higher profile/skinnier tyre to avoid it, or buy better shocks, or is it as the guys at BobJane suggested down the the choice of tyre (not size)?

What do the drifters use on these things, these sort of tyre setup? I dont plan to drift, but certainly want to be able to step it sideways or do a serious launch.

Any help would be appreciated! Thanks

Conrad

I have exactly the tyre/wheel sizes that you want to upgrade to, and I only have 2 problems - 1 is the guards are too narrow on the front, I need to get them rolled or something (or buy GTR guards :D) and 2 the rear tyres are so soft they shred and leave black tyre dust all over the back of my car. Well that's not related to the size at all but I thought I'd mention it anyway :D

I don't have any problems with comfort, handling or traction with this setup. I'd say a lot of that would have to do with your shock absorbers and sway bars anyway.

Hi JimX,

thanks for the update - do you run stock suspension on yours? mine is totally stock at the moment, so trying to get a feel for if I will need to move to better shocks once I have this tyre setup on.

Hmm... if theres no probs with the sizes I have picked, now I just have to pick WHAT tyres to use... sheesh!

I do like the look of the Falken 451's, if you have any advice on tyres I am listening :D

I've got Bilstein shocks in mine. It did have the factory suspension when I got it but it was totally worn out so I can't really compare the ride qualities. The steering wheel would shudder like a bastard everytime I hit a decent bump with both front wheels at the same time.

I've heard that the Japanese sports suspension (Cusco/JIC/Tein etc) are all really hard and not very comfortable for Australian roads. And unless the road is really smooth you'll be airborne a lot of the time anyway with ultra-hard suspension. I was originally after Koni adjustables but apparently they don't do a kit for Skylines yet.

For tyres I would probably go Nankang, that's what I have on the front and they seem to be a bit harder than my rear Toyo's (much less tyre dust) but seem to grip just as good. When my rears wear out I'll try Nankangs on the back too. I don't know much about Falkens because they have so many different models, but I do know that the low-end hard model that most people put on their Skylines to compliance them are pretty crap. Go for something a bit softer.

Check out this thread on tyres

Tyres

I have the 25540s on the back, and 23540s on the front, its an awesome setup, and doesnt ride harsh at all, with the purchase of my new tyres i'll have a similar setup.. try and keep the profile the same.. is there any reason you want 45s on the front and 40s on the rear?

235/45 is a closer match in height to 255/40 than 235/40 to 255/40. Here's what the profile height of each of the aforementioned will be:

235/40: 94

235/45: 105.75

255/40: 102

255/45: 114.75

So if you kept the same 40 profile front to rear, the rear tyre diameter is 8mm bigger than the front as opposed to about 4mm smaller if you got 45 for the front. I guess it's not much difference either way, but for that reason it's fine do choose either profile combination.

Personally I would get whatever size made the speedo most accurate (ie closest to stock) and then get the profile on the front that was the closest in size to the rear.

The reason why i say it would be a little bit harsher would be

the less flex in the tyre wall on a lower profile tyre.

Does everyone agree or disagree with my theory/practise?

Hmm. but then again. it does depend on your shocks also.. I've

got stock shocks with about 3inch lowered springs... :D

Looks aight... just ask Ryan about the ride..

Bump and Grind all the way baby!!

I've got 255/40 on the rear and 235/45 on the front with JIC coilovers... These coilovers are sssoooooo stiff!!!!! Lets just say they are the equivalent of an iron bar in place of the coilovers... When i jack up the car, the coilovers only push out less than 1cm... So i find the ride very harsh, but awesome round corners, feels like its on rails!!! And around the track is awesome as well...

As for diff bounce, i got a 2 way nismo LSD, and i don't notice any sorta bouncing, just wheel spin...

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...