Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 886
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ok getting it all balanced as we speak, just a concern, im leaning toward replacing the clutch but im getting it balanced my excedy, will the new clutch affect the balance that much?

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok just got the call from my machinist. $866 for the balancing, grub screwing the crank, checking bearing clearances, installing crank collar. So my build so far is very close to $5k

i doubt that anyone is still actually going to help me but i have some questions.

my stagea manual is in Japanese, but i have an r33 manual in English (only covers rb26 bottom end) will the rb26 bottm end and rb25 top end torque settings be ok for my rb25 neo?

what is my ring gap supposed to be, i just want to make sure it has all been machined correctly before i assemble it. (cp pistons, 86.5mm)

arp head studs, what kind of socket is it and what size?

assembly lube, is it normally in the oil section at auto stores?

Ok incase anyone cares. I'm going top 17 mid 19 oil 16.

The manual says to stretch the head studs, do arp studs need this done too? Will i need to re tension the head studs after the run in?

Head settings In my manual says

Tighten to 29N-m

Tighten to 98N-m

Loosen to 0N-m

Tighten to 25-34N-m

Tighten to 93-103N-m

But the arp booklet says 80N-m

What should I do?

just noticed something strange, in the paperwork for the pistons it says the rings are made to suit a specific bore size but when measured they came back at top .010 and mid .015

what grade file should i use to file the gap?

Just thought I would try the cp ring gap calculator formula and according to that my ring gaps should be top .018 mid .024 and oil minimum .015.

That's kind of disturbing.

ok update. out of the box the rings measure as follows, #1 - .010 and .020, #2 - .012 and .022, #3 - .011 and .020, #4 - .011 and .020, #5 - .010 and .022, #6 - .011 and .020. ive set all the mid rings to .022 as per cp specs. with any luck i can find a harder file tomorrow and set all my top rings to .018

and yes i realize im probable talking to myself, but im considering this as my blog from now on. that way atleast i can come back and find out what ive done/done wrong

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

    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 馃槃  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
  • Create New...