Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

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?

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.

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)

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 .

  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 .

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)

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

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 by discopotato03
  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)

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

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)...

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

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

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 hoping I just don't have to do an engine rebuild NOW. Doesn't mean I won't do it at some point. I think a plus point is that the car presumably ran on or close to stock power nearly all it's life so far. Only the Owner I bought it from actually increased power with a standalone ECU and blew the OEM turbos. And after it got thee 2860s it wasn't driven an awful lot either.   That is what I meant. With the twins coming on so late (4500-5000rpm) I hope the rods won't want to exit the block prematurely. And it still being a 26 means the torque curve isn't gonna hike up all that much.   It didn't blow up on the dyno when they tuned it to 500ish crank. So I suppose it'll be okay for now. They did put a Tomei head gasket on first though which did not seal at all, and they redid it with a Cometic one. Which I hope won't be my water leak.   Mainly anything oil. So far all it has is the N1 pump, oil restrictor and a filter relocation kit with a cooler.
    • 15000? ish? Something like that anyway. It wasn;t so much a wear as a tear that then spread. Might have lasted a lot longer if not bothered by just one incident, whatever it was. I took a punt. They are really comfortable and do a good job of holding. My daughter HATED it when I first put them in, and probably still does now. She has sensory issues and hates the way they are all up your business. I'm 197cm and 95kg. Not fat or particularly wide, and the XL size seat is the rigth fit. If I was any fatter it would start to get too snug. Any skinnier and you'd possibly want the smaller width.
    • Mrs rs focus came factory with recaro cs  sportsters in it and they a pain in the ass to get in and out of with the really high bolsters, once you were in them they were one of the most comfortable seats I have ever sat in
    • The NA 2.5 has very little torque. You won't feel much. Those trannies are also a million years old now and it could well be f**ked. First generation electronically controlled autos will often refuse to kick down, ete, etc, depending on what's wrong with them.
    • Yes, but no but yes but no. Those "it's fine up to 500HP" rules and everything else like it were all determined back when the cars were 10 years old. As they are now 30 years old.....what do you reckon the chances of something shitting the bed are? I'd say they are much higher now than they used to be. You might be lucky. You might be unlucky. Spin the wheel and find out. Yeah, nah. It's actually exactly the opposite. Making boost early and having heaps of torque able to be generated right in the middle of the rev range will do more to damage an engine than having to rev it high to make the power. Think about the load on the conrods, bearings, etc, to make 400HP at 4000 rpm, vs 400 HP at 6500 rpm. So someone has already "let the Nissan out" which is how we describe the increased chance of a fiddled with engine to have had something done wrongly. Many more engines that have been opened die than stock ones do - even if you into consideration how they are treated wrt power levels and the like. Again, not saying that yours will definitely have been put back together by a moron. But the possibility does exist. It's still a lottery. Spin the wheel. What weakspots?
×
×
  • Create New...