Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Applies to 4 pistons. Serious. Not theory. Shit is real.

I need.to read up on all of this. As well as bring some of these concerns to the guys that run them over here. If I was to buy a brembo big brake upgrade. I would guess all these issues would be addressed. This is crap because im all about functionality then looks. Wow. I can see myself basically taking a course on these valid points. Here goes the reading. Ok. If it was you guys is there any way of addressing these problems feom the info you've seen.

Thw bleed screw one is valid. Any others???

master cylinder and brake bias

I need.to read up on all of this. As well as bring some of these concerns to the guys that run them over here. If I was to buy a brembo big brake upgrade. I would guess all these issues would be addressed. This is crap because im all about functionality then looks. Wow. I can see myself basically taking a course on these valid points. Here goes the reading. Ok. If it was you guys is there any way of addressing these problems feom the info you've seen.
Thw bleed screw one is valid. Any others???

The 6pot would be overkill, like Fred Flintstone Panic Braking.

So what is the difference between 6 pot and 4 pot? Running the same rotor and pad will often mean less braking power!!!!!! NOT more!!!!!!

There are loads of threads posted about this sort of the stuff. Maybe people should read the EVO caliper thread to get an idea. People shoudl think of brakes as simply heat sinks. So you are not trying to stop quicker, but rather stop more consistently. So you handle more heat largely with the rotor so everything the caliper does it based around what the rotor needs.

Good pads and fluid. Good curved vane rotors of bigger diameter...and frankly its pretty silly to use less than ideal lug mount caliper adaptors rather than go to a proper radial caliper. Especially when the piston sizes are going the wrong direction. ie the bigger the rotor you choose the run you actually want to go to a caliper with less piston area...NOT more. So going from a 280-296mm std Nissan rotor to a 355mm rotor you dont want to be going to a caliper with bigger pistons than the std 40.4mm pistons

  • Like 1

Off topic but would there be any advantage to using a larger rotor with the factory caliper via the use of an adapter of some sort? Forget the cost to benefit ratio I'm just curious whether it would increase performance and reduce brake fade.

Just had the thought because more people use 17/18 inch wheels than the factory 16s

Edited by Blackkers

Off topic but would there be any advantage to using a larger rotor with the factory caliper via the use of an adapter of some sort? Forget the cost to benefit ratio I'm just curious whether it would increase performance and reduce brake fade.

Just had the thought because more people use 17/18 inch wheels than the factory 16s

Yes definitely better. To actually be able to fit an adapter though the difference in rotor size needs to be a fair bit.

Yes definitely better. To actually be able to fit an adapter though the difference in rotor size needs to be a fair bit.

And then you start to get into the problem of the larger diameter rotor not fitting nicely into the shape of the caliper or the pad not sitting nicely on the rotor.

So it works for some cases, not for others.

  • Like 1

hugely overpriced given what the parts cost, 6 pots can by had for us$500 plus shipping brand spankers.

Not even that.

I priced them at US149ea

Even Jegs and Summit have them for around 155-160us ea

Brackets are 160ish US

The Calipers are cheap because GM order them by the millions. So of course, they cost f**k all.

997 GT3 cup calipers arent that expensive either.

Yeah about $700 when I last checked.

Problem is cost to get them fitted makes things expensive - and the time factor.

Hence a 'bolt-on' Skyline kit, ready to go and can be done in a couple hours, is always handy.

The Calipers are cheap because GM order them by the millions. So of course, they cost f**k all.

Yeah about $700 when I last checked.

Problem is cost to get them fitted makes things expensive - and the time factor.

Hence a 'bolt-on' Skyline kit, ready to go and can be done in a couple hours, is always handy.

Very true.

Been looking at those brackets that US mob are making....cant say im a fan....look like they would flex a whole bunch! being 10(ish)mm aluminium.

Though I may buy the 4 pot brackets, and If I'm unhappy, have the bracket remade in 4140 or something.

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...