Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You can pick faults in any of the gearboxes, and every single option for a GT-R has a myriad of failure stories. I think it all comes down to budget, all of them seem to occupy a price range seperate to the others..

Cheapest to dearest of bolt in solutions:

1/OS Gearset

2/ Pfitzner gearset

3/ Trust H pattern

4/ Pfitzner H pattern

5/ HKS H pattern

6/ Trust sequential

7/ OS sequential

8/ Hollinger seq and H pattern

Somewhere in there is the HKS sequential and air shifted boxes, but due to the nature of them (have to be sent back to Japan to be fixed by HKS) I don't think they are really an option. Same with their H pattern box. All of the other boxes can get parts purchased for repairs or updates.

Cheapest to the dearest , that being the Hollinger the dearest ?

OK forget costs, what about best reliability and best rep for the money.

You can pick faults in any of the gearboxes, and every single option for a GT-R has a myriad of failure stories. I think it all comes down to budget, all of them seem to occupy a price range seperate to the others..

Cheapest to dearest of bolt in solutions:

1/OS Gearset

2/ Pfitzner gearset

3/ Trust H pattern

4/ Pfitzner H pattern

5/ HKS H pattern

6/ Trust sequential

7/ OS sequential

8/ Hollinger seq and H pattern

Somewhere in there is the HKS sequential and air shifted boxes, but due to the nature of them (have to be sent back to Japan to be fixed by HKS) I don't think they are really an option. Same with their H pattern box. All of the other boxes can get parts purchased for repairs or updates.

Last time I priced a Hollinger it was $23k with seq shifter. But I mean, really - that's a whole new car for that price!

$23 k Nah that's to serious for me , makes a 2 speed auto look nicer all the time.

Still concidering the trust box , not sure?

spoke to John Munro a while ago, things about how his street and race GTR going.

I remeber he mention the trust was "shit", pain in the arse to drive in the traffic and not strong enough.

He ditch the Hollinger in his race car and using a OS sequential from Keir Wilson.

Didn't ask why but it might indicate how good the OS is?

and i "think" he is using Pfitzner H pattern in his 4xxawkw street GTR

Possibly if the hollinger is too much look at the new HKS sequential versions. they had some on display at this years tokyo autosalon and they looked pretty serious. again they wont be cheap, but i imagine half the price of a hollinger...

I have heard a few people bitch about the trust boxes.

that ikeya shifter would have to be the biggest waste of money i have every seen. costs over $1500 and is just as slow or slower than just using your hand to shift through and H pattern. can you tell i'm not a fan...lol. seriously though, it's a waste of money.

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

    • I'm going to slap an old nismo logo sticker on my spare one and sell it to the land of the free for a thousand bucks
    • lol, probably should have read further!
    • Well - they have arrived.  And they are easy on the eye to put it mildly... These only have three bolts - but for a start there is a key that fits with vacuum like precision..  And as you can see by my ruler, the interface is large..   I listened to a podcast on HP Academy about Dan (KiwiCNC) and I'm more than comfortable he knows what he is doing. R35 Bearing assembly should arrive later today so can mock that up for a look. Can't wait to get these on and get some brake pressure logging too. IMG_3860.MP4
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
    • I would be very confident that they are the same parts (the 2 different SKUs). It seems very clear that you can drop the cam in the 2-way opening, or in the other opening. If you arrange it in the other opening in the same way that you see any other 1-way diff, ie, with the flat of the cam up against the 1° side of the opening, then it would work as a 1-way. It can only spread the ramps when driving forwards - cannot spread the ramps on overrun. It would then appear obvious that if you put the cam into the opening "backwards", that you would get the angled flats of the cam working onto the "points" of the 1° side of the opening, which would give you ramp spread in both loading directions. I do wonder if the forward direction of the 1.5-way config is equivalent to the forward direction of the 2-way, seeing as the cams are flipped and the angled surfaces on those would need to be the same on each side - AND - clearly when installed in either the 2-way or 1-1ay configuration they are not intended to work exactly the same (the ramp angles on the 2-way are 10° different between forward and backward, and the ramp doesn't exist in the 1-way config). 'twere me, I think I would rather actually have a set of rings that offered the 2-way with two different sets of ramp angles, say the 55/45 of the existing design and maybe a 45/37.5 combo for a less aggressive effect), AND another set of rings with a dedicated 1.5-way opening and a dedicated 1-way opening. The 1.5-way opening would actually have the steeper angle on the overdrive side that causes it to be less pushy than the forward drive angle, like you see in many other diffs. But really - if this Nismo thing is thought out properly and all those surfaces work on each other the way that they need to, who am I to argue?
×
×
  • Create New...