Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

thanks guys, i'll get the hammers out tomorrow!

Please Picture Document this brake swap for us, I REALLY want to know how its done :(

i've only started on the drivers side so far so i'll take pics when i do the other side, they'll be from my phone so not the best pics

If you are using hammers on the tops of the joints, leave nuts on or you'll f*** the threads.

machg

what your saying is leave the bolts loose so the bit i'm trying to remove can move just enough to loosen but not dig into the threads...

Yeah the easiest way is to slug it with a hammer and loosen the tapered joint. As what's been said, put a nut on the thread to protect it so the hammer doesn't damage it. I always find it useful to also pull the arm down, usually comes out easier this way.

got it off thanks guys, might need to machine the s-13 hubs a hairs width to let them slide on a bit deeper just so i can tighten it enough to put the pin back in...

thanks guys..

Machine what to tighten up to what??? You've lost me :headspin:

Machine what to tighten up to what???  You've lost me  :headspin:

the steering arm bolt and the hole on the s-13 hub dont match, the hole is just to small to let it slide down enough to put the pin in place, i've threaded the nut trying to tighten it so i'll get it rethreaded or a new steering rack (need power steering anyway).

I think you will find that the s13 runs a tapered tie rod where the r30 runs a straight one. So they will need to be drilled out, I reamed mine for a nice tight fit.

it might be the other way round as the arm on the hub has just stopped, leaving about 3mm of thread showing...i might just get a grinder drill bit and trial and error it till it fits. i'll need a tap and die set too to fix the thread ;)

the best way to release the tire rod end from the stearing arm is this:

grab 2 hammers and swing the both athe the same time either side of the steeering arm... leving the nut on but loosely. you need to hit it with both hammers simultanisly in order to shock the taper locking the tire rod to steering arm, releasing the taper. may need a couple of hits, but this should do the trick. by leaving the nut on, its stops the tire rod end hittinfg the ground then you can undo the nut and remove the arm

i have done many a joint before and its worked a treat.... ( shown to me by my motor mechanic)........

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...