Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I blew my diff up the other day and got another to replace it with.

Here are the pictures of the brakes that the previous owner of the car thought was simply "a worn gearbox making all the noise"

disc1.jpg

disc2.jpg

disc3.jpg

disc4.jpg

Min thickness stamped on the disc is 8.4mm

I have AP Street Sport pads on my car, they were suppost to be low dust, but I think it would be impossible for them to produce more dust. I really want to see the pads, I have a sneaking suspision the mechanics may has stolen those pads, and put crap ones in, dodgy.

Greg. :devfu:

Well,

I think EBC is pricewise... If I'm selling my car, the mechanic who does RWC will ask to replace the pads anyway (all of them wanna make money), so I gotta replace pads coz they're almost due.

I can hear metal schreeching a bit when moving forward slightly n applying light brake

yeaowch!

Kinda makes you wonder though when they keep pulling you on "minimum thickness" when u get your brakes replaced when in reality the disc in those photos never shattered after all, even when it was half the recommended!

I can imagine the cool sparks on braking.. dudes would probably just be looking at the sparks flying off going "wtf?"

Yep, some ppl dun deserve to drive a car...

I met someone who bought his R33 +/- 8 months ago from an overseas student who just left the country. The previous owner never even changed the oil since 1999!!!

That's bad....

Spoke to the wrecker again today (Datsall in Lilydale) and he said the front brakes are the vented type and the entire disc on one side of the vents had been ripped off by metal/metal contact.

  • 1 month later...
Originally posted by Bozz

I blew my diff up the other day and got another to replace it with.

Here are the pictures of the brakes that the previous owner of the car thought was simply "a worn gearbox making all the noise"

disc1.jpg  

disc2.jpg  

disc3.jpg  

disc4.jpg  

Min thickness stamped on the disc is 8.4mm

hahahahaha

but.. ur lucky u werent in an accident

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 i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...