Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Long story short, I bought a GTR earlier this year with a blown motor, it's a 93 R32 GTR. Is there anyway to identify which gearbox this was removed from? Unfortunately at the them before putting everything back together this is the only picture I've got.

 

Cheers

Jeff20190508_152104.jpg

Sorry, kind of realised what I had sent after posting and I had left it too long to edit the post. I was just wondering is there any way of identifying what series of GTR gearbox do I have, it has the 2 holes in the bell housing to identify its a later model gearbox, and whether the sticker would help.

There are really only 2 differences to be aware of with the 32/33 boxes.

Push vs Pull clutch. Some late 32 and all 33 clutches are pull style, other 32 are push style. You can tell which by looking under the car, if the slave cylinder rod points towards the rear of the car it is a push style

Series 3 R33 vs all others. There were changes to bearings and synchos in the last series of R33 gearboxes to improved strength. You can't tell identify that without a tear down

Edited by Duncan
corrected a typo in push v pull

Awesome! Yea the slave is pointing to the rear of the car so at least I can now confirm it's an R33 box. Now the problem is downshifting from 4th to 3rd at high revs its crunching, so looking at options

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

....Push vs Pull clutch. Some late 32 and all 33 clutches are push style, other 32 are push style. You can tell which by looking under the car, if the slave cylinder rod points towards the rear of the car it is a push style...

 

1 hour ago, Dorifudo said:

Awesome! Yea the slave is pointing to the rear of the car so at least I can now confirm it's an R33 box. Now the problem is downshifting from 4th to 3rd at high revs its crunching, so looking at options

Sorry I just re-read my post (and I will edit it now for future readers). late 32 and 33 is pull, not push, I said push twice above:spank:

To be clear, since your slave cylinder rod points backwards, it is a push style clutch, which is the early 32 style. Which is probably better news, particularly for cost and range of replacment clutches

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...