Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So there was a write up to the changes to the stagea model and the reasons behind why they relocated the springs the way they have.

It went something along the lines that the ability to separate springs to the shocks was to allow the cargo compartment not to be hindered by higher strut towers and the ability to displace the load under stress. I may be wrong in my understanding but would it also mean the design of a shock and spring system wouldn't allow enough rebound or loading of the compartment?

When I bought my MCA I thought (incorrectly) that all M35 coilover kits converted the rear to a proper coilover and also that MCA is a well know/respected brand that make quality products and wouldn't sell something dangerous and/or of inferior quality. Along with reaperblitz I thought the change in suspension was to make room for larger compartment not due to load sharing, after all OEM springs are generally quite a lot larger in diameter than aftermarket coilovers hence would require a large shock tower which would take space away from the rear compartment.

Been trying to find all these failed shock mounts on MCA equiped M35's. No luck yet. I did find this though: http://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/440310-coilover-issue/Both ARX, one with stock suspension, one with aftermarket, both look like the bolts pulled out rather than a problem with compression forces. One due to incorrect adjustment of the shock and one due to loose mounting nuts by the sound of it. You can also see the damper adjuster in one pic exposed to the elements and covered in road grime. If you pull away the interior trim you will see a very strong, reinforced, well engineered C pillar which by chance is what the shock mount forces are applied to. I'll go with an expert, say like someone who builds suspension for a living rather than speculation of what might happen. I'm sure Mr Nissan knew what he was doing but if they got it right from the factory then why would we bother modifying our cars at all. On another note you can specify what springs you want at no extra cost with MCA and don't have to change the large spring again which is a PITA. If you are happy with your BCs, awesome but don't bash the MCAs just because you reckon.

Been trying to find all these failed shock mounts on MCA equiped M35's. No luck yet. I did find this though: http://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/440310-coilover-issue/Both ARX, one with stock suspension, one with aftermarket, both look like the bolts pulled out rather than a problem with compression forces. One due to incorrect adjustment of the shock and one due to loose mounting nuts by the sound of it. You can also see the damper adjuster in one pic exposed to the elements and covered in road grime. If you pull away the interior trim you will see a very strong, reinforced, well engineered C pillar which by chance is what the shock mount forces are applied to. I'll go with an expert, say like someone who builds suspension for a living rather than speculation of what might happen. I'm sure Mr Nissan knew what he was doing but if they got it right from the factory then why would we bother modifying our cars at all. On another note you can specify what springs you want at no extra cost with MCA and don't have to change the large spring again which is a PITA. If you are happy with your BCs, awesome but don't bash the MCAs just because you reckon.

Not bashing at all; there's no question about Josh's product, nor his knowledge.

However; regardless of how well reinforced you might think the shock mount is; I don't believe it was ever designed to support the entire corner of the car on that tiny little sheetmetal cup bolted to the bodywork.

Not speculation; fact.

Not bashing at all; there's no question about Josh's product, nor his knowledge.

However; regardless of how well reinforced you might think the shock mount is; I don't believe it was ever designed to support the entire corner of the car on that tiny little sheetmetal cup bolted to the bodywork.

Not speculation; fact.

"I don't believe" = fact? Interesting.

Show me the evidence.

"I don't believe" = fact? Interesting.

Show me the evidence.

A shock mount is not designed to hold weight its sole purpose is to control the spring. The spring on the other hand does hold the weight of the corner of car

I think i quoted wrong person anyhoo

Edited by stripey

"I don't believe" = fact? Interesting.

Show me the evidence.

Yeah, semantics; wrote it in a hurry, and thought about it later.

Still not fit for purpose; otherwise Nissan would've just put the whole lot there.

Every strut top I've ever seen or worked with has a hell of a lot more surface area to distribute the load; this arrangement does nothing of the sort. Instead, it localises the entire corner weight of the vehicle on a tiny unsupported piece of sheetmetal spotwelded over a void in the body.

There is absolutely no benefit or performance advantage in combining the spring and shock into one position in this instance; and avoiding using the specifically designed and reinforced spring perch is just an exercise in simplifying his parts bin because he now doesn't need to have custom wound mini-block springs as per OEM.

He can just use his off the shelf small diameter coilover spec springs to maximise his profit.

I stand by my comment, but you are free to do whatever you choose.

Just out of clarity (until I can find the actual reason/ information) m35 rwd is different suspension than the m35 4wd yes?

But the chassis is pretty much the same minus the subframe?

M35 shares its front suspension with the Z33 and V35; the rear suspension and subframe is identical between NM35 and M35

http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/NEWS/2001/_STORY/011016-01.html

Suspension: Featuring a new multi-link rear suspension designed specifically for wagon application

The new Stagea employs four wheel multi-link suspension and realizes superior handling, stability and ride comfort.

Its rear suspension is a newly developed multi-link rear suspension that has the coil springs mounted separately from the shock absorbers and lowers the upper attachment position of the shock absorbers by 270 mm compared with the suspension on the previous model. As a result, this dedicated wagon suspension minimizes intrusions into the luggage area.

Ripple-control shock absorbers are used to isolate the transmission of minute vibrations from the road surface for improved tire-road contact.

*Still can't find the type of multi link system explanation

http://nissan.epcdata.ru/stagea/nm35/6839-vq25det/trans/431/

Edited by Reaperblitz

Thanks for clearing that up Daleo. Slightly off topic. Why would they sell different kits to cater for the 4wd compared to the rwd? Added weight of attEsa system?

they sell different kit as the front suspension is slightly different in the front ie the way the coil over is mounted and its style as it has the front drive shafts in the way of where the lower mounts are

Yeah, semantics; wrote it in a hurry, and thought about it later.

Still not fit for purpose; otherwise Nissan would've just put the whole lot there.

Every strut top I've ever seen or worked with has a hell of a lot more surface area to distribute the load; this arrangement does nothing of the sort. Instead, it localises the entire corner weight of the vehicle on a tiny unsupported piece of sheetmetal spotwelded over a void in the body.

There is absolutely no benefit or performance advantage in combining the spring and shock into one position in this instance; and avoiding using the specifically designed and reinforced spring perch is just an exercise in simplifying his parts bin because he now doesn't need to have custom wound mini-block springs as per OEM.

He can just use his off the shelf small diameter coilover spec springs to maximise his profit.

I stand by my comment, but you are free to do whatever you choose.

Fair enough. Only time will tell. Just trying to support local and hoping that people don't confuse opinion with fact when deciding on their purchase. All good.

  • Like 1

Fair enough. Only time will tell. Just trying to support local and hoping that people don't confuse opinion with fact when deciding on their purchase. All good.

I've only heard fantastic things about his product; everyone raves about them, and also Josh's product support and knowledge. I have absolutely no axe to grind with MCA at all.

That's why I'm completely mystified by the choice to mount them this way.

TBH; I hope they never have any kind of failure, no customer deserves that, and Josh certainly doesn't either.

This is more than just here mate. This was all mentioned to josh on facebook with concerns and links to the fail as he was developing. Not taking away what he offers what so ever as his profuct has been proven in time attack for years. Im this application this is a big weak point unless the m35 owner sends his/her car to an engineer to strengthen the area in question. 99% of owners wont as this cost plus suspension cost will outweigh other products on the market. And this is not from someone against his product as numerous times i have said i will be keen on MCA blues once i wait to see if current owners running MCAs have this mount cracking/failing in which it eventually will as it has happrned running the BC coilovers set up.

Agree. The shock mount is not designed to take the full weight of the rear.

Different car and setup; In my trucking days there were plenty of people using coilovers on the standard Shock mounts in conjunction with 4 links. Some swore it was fine, but seeing a few fail showed me otherwise.

G35 and 350z with purdy adjustable arms and a Datto 1600 all deleting the factory spring to run a true coilover and they all run more of a shock tower rather than having the mount incorporated into the base of the c pillar. Just sayin'. I wish I had found these damper adjuster extensions (so you don't need to remove the trim) earlier in my research so I could have got away with a smaller access hole in the already weak, flimsy mount. :P

post-135423-0-58039900-1454538431_thumb.jpgpost-135423-0-59756200-1454538450_thumb.jpgpost-135423-0-41492600-1454538471_thumb.jpgpost-135423-0-51704400-1454538833_thumb.jpg

Just looked at the difference. The spring sits on the platform that attaches to the rear end of the brake hub. The modified version uses an adjustable brace? Wouldn't that need to be certified as you're changing the design engineering of the suspension? I.e there's no downward support for where it used to sit?

Just curious- Please entertain the thought process in this

Just looked at the difference. The spring sits on the platform that attaches to the rear end of the brake hub. The modified version uses an adjustable brace? Wouldn't that need to be certified as you're changing the design engineering of the suspension? I.e there's no downward support for where it used to sit?

Just curious- Please entertain the thought process in this

Gives more accurate toe adjustment rather than slotting the subframe.

post-135423-0-02068000-1454544861_thumb.jpg

Thought this was pretty cool if you want to keep the separate spring and shock.

post-135423-0-09812000-1454544887_thumb.jpg

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

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...