Jump to content
SAU Community

ATS Carbon Silent Twin - Anyone Used ?

Butters

By Butters,
in Drivetrain and transmission

 Share

Recommended Posts

Butters Experienced

Butters

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Its built to be a street car, I take the kids in it and hence I forked the coin for a syncro box, not dog engagement. 

It drives amazing and pretty much achieved my goal except for this noise and power goal ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Butters Experienced

Butters

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/15/2022 at 11:22 PM, r32-25t said:

If you want it to drive and sound stock just leave it stock

 

Back to the RB20 Auto then eh ....

 

Building a street car for me, how I want it, I accept plenty of things won't be like a stock car(exhaust one example).  If i can make some things that bother me better why not try.   

 

I post here to gain the experience of others who may have used some of these parts, it's sad how often i regret that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Butters Experienced

Butters

Posted
  • Author
Posted

well if we can get back to car parts for a moment over questioning my life choices ...

 

Here is some really good insight from Sam at Neat

"Yes this is a characteristic of the V160 especially with a solid centre clutch and DMF removal. Rebuilding them can benefit a little as it tightens things up a bit, and we also do ISF treatment to the gear which can reduce noise, but not the rattle. Changing the oil to a light weight gear oil (75w85GL4) can benefit things a bit, as the OEM-fill ATF has almost no EP additives in it at all. You may find additional shift notchiness if you do this though, especially while cold."

 

Ordered some oil, its a cheap thing to try and good to know a rebuild could possibly take the edge off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BK Grand Master

BK

Posted
Posted
On 17/08/2022 at 12:04 PM, Butters said:

 

Ordered some oil, its a cheap thing to try and good to know a rebuild could possibly take the edge off.

I surprised Sam said that actually. There is a reason the V160 uses ATF - the synchro material. Normal gear oil as opposed to good ATF like Castrol Transmax Z will attack the synchro baulk ring over time, the same with the Tremec T56 / TR6060 that uses ATF too.

You can give it a go as it will definitely make the gears quieter with gear oil (i wouldn't), but I hope you don't plan shifting above 6000rpm.

It won't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • joshuaho96
      ER34 AT ECU and HKS SLD pins

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      Any chance you can get a Nistune board installed instead and set the speed limit to whatever your tires can handle?
    • GoHashiriya
      ER34 AT ECU and HKS SLD pins

      By GoHashiriya · Posted

      Hi all, I need to get this HKS SLD attached to my stock ECU because I've now got the German autobahn and faster European circuits to contend with.  The car is a manual 2dr ER34 with an AT ECU and I've realised the AT ECU has two pins for speed sensor signals: Pin 29: Vehicle speed sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 2) Pin *58: Output shaft rotation sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 1) - *RB25DET A/T model only Before I go butchering this harness, is anyone sure of which pin is the correct one for signal adjustment? The attached document from HKS indicates pin 29 but I found this situation mentioned in the following thread on a different forum (R34 GTT Auto Trans Speed Cut Problem | Zerotohundred) mentioning pin 58 needing to be altered by member zephuros, albeit it seems to be for an RSM-GP and the info appears to be old.  R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-2.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-3.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-1.pdf HKS SLD Vehicle Pin out P59-P70 ER34-pages.pdf
    • dyl33
      Creative in cabin amp locations

      By dyl33 · Posted

      Slimline sub on the rear parcel shelf is doable. Pioneer TS-WX140DA is only 70mm high.   
    • GTSBoy
      Rear suspension upgrades

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      People like Johnny Dose Bro might be laughing at my post because I accidentally added 100mm to my numbers. 350-355 is indeed the lower limit. 450 is off-road Skyline spec.
    • GTSBoy
      Pillowball/Hardened Runner Hybrid Approach

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      What is the "compromise" that you think will happen? Are you thinking that something will get damaged? The only things you have to be concerned about with spherical jointed suspension arms are; Arguments with the constabulary wrt their legality (they are likely to be illegal for road use without an engineering certificatation, and that may not be possible to obtain). A lot more NVH transmitted through to the passengers (which is hardly a concern for those with a preference for good handling, anyway). Greatly increased inspection and maintenance requirements (see above points, both).   It is extremely necessary to ask what car you are talking about. Your discussion on strut tops, for example, would be completely wrong for an R chassis, but be correct for an S chassis. R32s have specific problems that R33/4 do not have. Etc. I have hardened rubber bushes on upper rear control arms and traction rods. Adjustable length so as to be able to set both camber and bump steer. You cannot contemplate doing just the control arms and not the traction arms. And whatever bushing you have in one you should have in the other so that they have similar characteristics. Otherwise you can get increased oddness of behaviour as one bushing flexes and the other doesn't, changing the alignment between them. I have stock lower rear arms with urethane bushes. I may make changes here, these are are driven by the R32's geometry problems, so I won't discuss them here unless it proves necessary. I have spherical joints in the front caster rods. I have experienced absolutely no negatives and only positives from doing so. They are massively better than any other option. I have sphericals in the FUCAs, but this is driven largely by the (again) R32 specific problems with the motion of those arms. I just have to deal with the increased maintenance required. Given how much better the front end behaves with the sphericals in there.....I'd probably be tempted to go away from my preference (which is not to have sphericals on a road car, for 2 of the 3 reasons in the bulleted list above), just to gain those improvements. And so my preference for not using sphericals (in general) on a road car should be obvious. I use them judiciously, though, as required to solve particular problems.
×
×
  • Create New...