S13 Suspension Again... But With A Difference

[Adam_RSX]

I've been thinking... Everyone is using S13 coilovers to get low and run meatier brakes.

I'm not huge on the idea of my car needing bigger brakes, but I would like to see it sitting slightly lower. I could do this via lower springs for my DR30 struts but maybe I could swap to standard S13 struts. I know that those who have swapped to S13 coilovers have said that they need to have the coilovers set almost as high as they will go yet their Skyline still sits really low. I'd assume thats because the S13 struts are shorter?

So will standard S13 struts fit in a DR30 using the same bits as the coilover conversion, and will the R32/R33 brakes fit on a standard strut the same as on the coilover?

[stagefumer11]

Good idea but the problem is. The factory coil and seat on s13 struts are to large. And will rub on your rims. You would need a huge ofset to over come this.

Id love to know what i can do. I cannot afford coilovers. ect. But id like to have some good brakes and a 30mm drop in the front.

[DR JOSH]

Nope standard s13 springs are too wide for the skyline strut towers.

[Adam_RSX]

Grrrrrrrr Really don't want stupid coilovers

[V8skylineMAN]

you can get your strut towers machined to accept a platform similar to a coilover setup....but if you have a look the platform on r30's is basically as low as it can be anyway....your ONLY options are lowered springs.....and coilovers.

lowered springs with matching shocks is fine and can handle great, you just need to get a decent branded set....i would not recommend pedders(bad experience)

as for brakes i think that early magna disks are the right offset?

and use 4pot hilux calipers(or 75series Landbruisers)

[V8skylineMAN]

you COULD always get you r30 platforms welded to the s13 struts....

[discopotato03]

I would have to ask why you want the front so low ? You do realise that you screw up all the front geometry by having it low . Caster (radius) rods and the lower control arms effictively triangulate to form a lower wishbone joined to the Macpherson strut at the ball joint . When you lower the body you also lower the suspension location points and the geometry changes .

Firstly the lower control arms need to be higher at the cross member end in order to get some negative roll camber change . If they are horizontal at rest when the body rolls the arm scribes its arc upwards and inwards pulling the strut in with it giving positive camber change instead of negative . Not good .

Secondly the front of the caster rods are set to give the nose a degree of anti dive under deceleration and braking , dropping the nose reduces this so not only is it closer to the deck - its twice as likely to plow into it .

Do yourself a favour and leave the height std , fit slightly larger anti roll bars and something like the Noltec adjustable strut tops . Set the camber neutral and dial in as much positive caster as you can - I'm running +6 and turn in is the best I've ever seen on a strut car - with 205/55 16's . The front easily outgrips the back and it wears 225/50 16's .

Cheers A .

[DR JOSH]

  discopotato03 said:

I would have to ask why you want the front so low ? You do realise that you screw up all the front geometry by having it low . Caster (radius) rods and the lower control arms effictively triangulate to form a lower wishbone joined to the Macpherson strut at the ball joint . When you lower the body you also lower the suspension location points and the geometry changes .

Firstly the lower control arms need to be higher at the cross member end in order to get some negative roll camber change . If they are horizontal at rest when the body rolls the arm scribes its arc upwards and inwards pulling the strut in with it giving positive camber change instead of negative . Not good .

Secondly the front of the caster rods are set to give the nose a degree of anti dive under deceleration and braking , dropping the nose reduces this so not only is it closer to the deck - its twice as likely to plow into it .

Do yourself a favour and leave the height std , fit slightly larger anti roll bars and something like the Noltec adjustable strut tops . Set the camber neutral and dial in as much positive caster as you can - I'm running +6 and turn in is the best I've ever seen on a strut car - with 205/55 16's . The front easily outgrips the back and it wears 225/50 16's .

Cheers  A .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would very much agree with this but it all depends on how far you are willing to go with your suspension. Not much of mine is still standard including mounting positions for a lot of things. B)

[discopotato03]

To each their own but bent cross members and holed sumps don't do much for handling . If this is a look thing I don't want to know .

Cheers A

[Adam_RSX]

Adrian I know that standard height is pretty much optimum on the DRs, and I already have my front bar scraping everywhere, but it really does look like a 4wd compared to almost every other DR30 I see on the road.

I dont want super-low, just a tad lower. Its not like I'm a modifying nut, I've had it for over 2 years now and I havent even put a boost guage on it to see what standard boost is, let alone raised the boost. Maybe I'll just leave lowriding for the Triumph... Oh yes, that shall be loooooow

[stagefumer11]

YOu can modifie the suspention to accept all the changed. e.g shorten the sway bar link. and shorten the caster rods. Everything can be done easly.

[Adam_RSX]

I know that. I don't want coilovers because theyre wanky and unnecessary, like 'running more boost bro'

[discopotato03]

Adam when I stripped the Bluebird I had 4 good 205 50 16's to use up but was eternally greatfull to go back to 205 55 16's for more height and a more compliant ride . Depending on how you see it the increase in tyre diametre did sort of fill the front arches a little more but this was not the no 1 priority . I would never deliberatly buy 50 series tyres again at least in 205's or 215's .

Most cars of that era look nose high if the rails are parallel to the ground but thats because the body slopes forward not the floor pan . Also because the front end has the engine/auxilaries and transmission to support it needs to have more travel than the rear . When there is a rapid downward surge of all the front end mass there needs to be sufficient suspension travel for the spring and damper to control it . If the car is lower generally it hits the bump stops before the spring/damper can do its job . In my opinion you don't need to lower it to get it to handle . There are plenty of $100,000 + sports minded cars out there and they dont sit close to the ground .

Just for the record any strut that has the coil spring over the damper is a "coil over" . I would not be in any hurry to use Tien etc S13 bits and the spherical strut tops are a pain in the ass . Like I said , neutral camber , lots of positive caster , zero toe and you'll run rings around the doof doof wallys with 205 rubber . Wide tyres , low height and screwed up geometry - particularly with the wrong wheel offsets - doesn't work . Highly amusing rounding up some sickmobile with a standard appearing car . The bonus is its easy to live with on a daily basis and doesn't chop tyres out . Have you cake and eat it .

Cheers A .

Edit : What width rims and aspect ratio tyres do you run ?

Edited December 31, 2005 by discopotato03

[george.bryant]

whats wrong with runnning more boost? the more the better!

[stagefumer11]

oh dear or dear lol

[DR30RULES]

  DR JOSH said:

I would very much agree with this but it all depends on how far you are willing to go with your suspension. Not much of mine is still standard including mounting positions for a lot of things. B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you do the rack and pinion conversion using a bluebird crossmember and S13 control arms and S13 tie rods, then wouldn't be a good thing to use S13 hubs and coilovers geometry wise?

Josh, is the rack and pinion conversion finished and on the road?? How did you sort out steering linkage? Any comments, problems?

Also, I just spoke to Barry at Datsport. If we can get 20 people interested (including bluebird guys) they said he can make a adjustable rear crossmember to suit DR30.

Cheers

[rsx84]

import hr31 brakes are bigger and will lower the front by 40mm (someone else said that on this forum). i think all you need is the r31 inserts the r30 strut tops and the r31 brake lines?

the calipars are alot bigger and the rotors are 280mm plus they have a floating rotorso you can swap to the larger r32/r33 and even gtr brakes later (if you need too)...

[discopotato03]

The only R30 I ever saw with a rack used Bluebird (modified) struts and cut/shut Bluebird/R30 control arms . Steering was HEAVY though it did have shorter steering arms .

I have import Bluebird cross member and power rack but the DR is going on the market after rego in a couple of weeks so wont happen with me . I would have also cut/shut the control arms to suit the respective cross member and caster rod/ball joint .

S13 geometry is different because they used larger diametre springs and have less bump travel . You may find on a Bluebird or R30 that the bump travel is insufficient and droop travel excessive . Setting a reasonable ride heigh is only half the job . You can get better geometry from nearly std bits - need adjustable caster rods .

[stagefumer11]

Im going to look into the HR31 Jappa Struts. Sounds like a more promissing option

[rsx84]

  stagefumer11 said:

Im going to look into the HR31 Jappa Struts. Sounds like a more promissing option

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you want to upgrade the rotors and calipars later make shaw you get a set with floating rotors..