Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Don't forget, R34 uses 14mm bolt holes.. so.. the AOR kit will need bolt sleeves OR tapped out to accept 14mm bolts.

Then.. your brake balances will be aids, we have set this up on a S15, running a BM57 and R33 GTS-t rear calipers. Car doesn't stop as well as my piece of shit GTS-t rust bucket running just basic 350Z Brembo calipers (same shit as R34 GT-R just offset a few mms out), not to mention it weights more.

  • Like 1
On 27/03/2017 at 3:10 PM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Don't forget, R34 uses 14mm bolt holes.. so.. the AOR kit will need bolt sleeves OR tapped out to accept 14mm bolts.

Then.. your brake balances will be aids, we have set this up on a S15, running a BM57 and R33 GTS-t rear calipers. Car doesn't stop as well as my piece of shit GTS-t rust bucket running just basic 350Z Brembo calipers (same shit as R34 GT-R just offset a few mms out), not to mention it weights more.

They're made specific to each car, if you're talking about the Alpha Omega Racing stuff, so if he has an R34 GTR then he buys the R34 GTR kit and bolt it on. Other than the bending (I prefer completely removing) the backing plate to make room for a larger rotor - which you must do for all brake upgrades - they are 100% bolt on, no sleeving no tapping no modifying whatsoever... provided you buy the right parts for the car.

Bias wise any front-only upgrade will move the bias forward - that's a given. Standard R34 GTR bias is 70:30 and R34 GTR NUR-spec bias is 68:32. With the matching front and rear upgrade the Evo 350mm Brembo bias is 69:31, this makes it a perfectly perfect bias. All the technical specifications are listed and also within contains a link to a 3rd party bias calculator for you to verify: http://alphaomegaracing.com/p/149/c/72/Z32/ALPHA-OMEGA/Evo-350mm-Brembo-Rear-Brake-Adapter-Kit-WTAC-Edition.html

If someone like Dan upgrades his R34 GTR to front and rear Alpha Omega Racing braking stuff, there are well founded reasons to believe the car will consistently brake/stop in a shorter distance + be more stable over any duration + have longer rotor and pad life.

I hope that information is helpful for somebody reading, cheers

  • Like 1

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...