Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Has anyone moved the R32 FUCA outer pivot point down to allow more compression? It seems like the R32 front suspension is not happy about going low... I just swapped R32 strut towers (full GTR drivetrain, RB25/30) into my S13 and she sits a little high. I've also been looking for better control arms that don't bind but I only see bad feedback about what's on the market. Images show full compression (on jack) and then ride height with not much bump (1.5" maybe).

 

Knowing what I know now I would have gone R33 frontend but that ship has sailed. Looking to make the best out of the R32 bits.

2024-10-14_8-36-45.png

PXL_20241013_220552272.jpg

PXL_20241013_232033935.jpg

PXL_20241013_220654229.jpg

PXL_20240929_005310049.jpg

PXL_20241013_011107277.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/485881-getting-the-r32-frontend-lower/
Share on other sites

I guess that wasn't exactly a bolt in swap :rofl:

Generally the best option is just not to go too low since you can get reasonable handling out of an R chassis at a little below factory height.

If you want to keep going down, there are ball joint spacers for the bottom of the hub, not really much you can do at the top without going very custom (which...you already have...)

  • Like 1

No, you can't move the outer pivot point down. Well, not far enough to obtain any benefit, anyway. There's only a few mm of clearance in there to the end of the control arm. You'd have to cut up and open out the pocket of the upright to make space, and then you start to encroach on tyre space. Choose your compromise. I know which one I'd choose - the one that doesn't require all that metalwork on the upright for almost no gain.

Given the surgery you've already done, the answer probably lies in moving the inner bracket upwards.

7 hours ago, Josh K. said:

I've also been looking for better control arms that don't bind but I only see bad feedback about what's on the market.

Use the GKTech ones. You just have to remember that you have spherical joints in there and perform maintenance regularly enough.

  • Like 1
25 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

No, you can't move the outer pivot point down. Well, not far enough to obtain any benefit, anyway.

Moving the holes down also allows me to shave material off of the top. This way it can travel farther without risk of hitting the strut tower up top. I might just buy another upright and start playing with different positions and check how the suspension reacts.

For now, I'll just get the GKTech FUCA's like you suggested. I was shocked the first time I cycled the suspension and found it had so much bind up top. I initially thought I got a dimension wrong for strut tower/crossmember placement... 

Here's my Instagram if anyone wants to follow along... 風水 (@feng_shui_garage) • Instagram photos and videos

If you want the car lower without having to do it by shortening the suspension unit itself (ie, conventionally, by shorter springs or lowered perches on coilovers) and thus causing yourself the geometry problems of the arms all pointing up at the sky, then you need drop spindles. Time to open up the wallet, swat the various moths that come flying out, and pony up for....

https://au.gktech.com/products/v2-super-lock-r32-r33-r34-z32-front-knuckles?_pos=173&_fid=057415f49&_ss=c

which gives you a free 20mm drop, along with some other geometry improvements.

  • Like 1
9 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

If you want the car lower without having to do it by shortening the suspension unit itself (ie, conventionally, by shorter springs or lowered perches on coilovers) and thus causing yourself the geometry problems of the arms all pointing up at the sky, then you need drop spindles. Time to open up the wallet, swat the various moths that come flying out, and pony up for....

https://au.gktech.com/products/v2-super-lock-r32-r33-r34-z32-front-knuckles?_pos=173&_fid=057415f49&_ss=c

which gives you a free 20mm drop, along with some other geometry improvements.

Those are RWD only unfortunately. 

I think at this point I may switch my plan from building the RB30 to building another motor. I have an RB25 bock/head and RB26 crank/rod/pistons. If I build that motor, I can raise the cross member up 1" which helps a ton with ground clearance and then if I modify the knuckle arm at the top I can get more bump without causing the geo to be all whacked.

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...