Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi there,

im sure this has been asked before so sorry for the repeat, have been trying to search and seems the search bar (or my pc) hasnt been working for a few days.

anyway, my brother drives a 2003 (i think) 350GT he has recently upgraded to much bigger AP racing calipers and rotors

so here i am thinking i need bigger brakes when i see them in a box in the shed and they would be about perfect for what i need. (2 pot rear 4 pot front i think)

would the rotors and or calipers directly bold on? and if not what would be involved in making them fit?

also would i be needing a bigger than standard master cylinder?

cheers

Caleb

can anybody confirm? i have heard somewhere that fronts may fit but backs will need mounts drilled out and spacers put in, (possibly front too)

would be bloody awesome if i could use them

they aren't the same as 34 gtr brembos but im guessing u know that n ur suggesting that as a replacement booster. cheers tim!

My apologies, I got confused reading your user name and linked a R34 instead of R33 ABS MC. Revised link.

http://www.kudosmotorsports.com/catalog/genuine-nissan-pitwork-brake-master-cylinder-bm57-1716-nissan-skyline-r33-gtr-p-1044.html

Nissan Brembos calipers, including R32 (N1), R33, R34, 350Z, and 350GT are all the same. Only the disc size varied slightly between some models.

Brembo calipers use M12 x 1.5 bolts up front. Sumitimo calipers use M12 x 1.25. Therefore, if you have the mounting hardware, they're a direct fit.

I fitted r34 gtt brakes to my stagea (rs ) which has 12mm holes in the struts.

I machined up new inserts for the calipers with M12 threads.knocked out old ones knocked in new ones. Heaps easy.

Maybe I should make a heap more....

thanks heaps for your replies everyone

think i might just do with good pads and rotors with standard m-spec calipers until im tracking it and upgrade then.

took her up springbrook mountain last weekend and didnt fade too much even with cheap pads and rotors

yeah tim, my cousin used to drive a 34 and made an account under my email for some reason now i cant make my own account hah.

  • 2 weeks later...

Interested to hear how you go with this upgrade ? Only because i used to have a 350gt with the brembos and they underwhelmed me... this was with proper bleed/dot 4 fluid and TRW lucas pads and good tires.

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, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...