Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

im looking at getting a set of coilovers from Just Jap:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...howtopic=108386

These are the g4 ones going for $1399, now the spring rate is : 13 (F) 8.7 ® Kg/mm, now i have read that its quite hard that rate.

can anyone tell me what a decent spring rate would be for a street r33 gtst-t as just jap make can get them at custom spring rates for both front and back

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/113911-coilover-spring-rate/
Share on other sites

standard rate for jap coilovers is 8kgmm/6kgmm for front and rear

usually this is considered too stiff for australian streets, so maybe something a bit softer is in order. Fulcrum distribute Tien Super street coilovers tuned for australian conditions, might be worth a look.

I'm gettin my teins for $1800 tomorrow if any one wants some and got the cash in sydney i'll pick em up for em ,mine is for 32 gtst prob same price for 33

Prefer to pay $400 extra and get much superior than just jap bodgys from thailand ,vietnam wherever there made

PM

i have BC coilovers in my r33. the spring rate for mine is 8kg front and 6kg rear and it rides fine on the bumpy NZ roads.

if you wana harden it up you just dial up the dampning.

jap coilovers are often insanly hard with there spring rates.

Here in the UK most of the very quickest Group N touring car R32 GTR's, in their heyday, ran 1000 plus pound inch front springs and around 700 lbs inch rears. They were fully caged, so the shells were a LOT stiffer than stock, but it seems to differ greatly from SK's findings, even given the big weight differences between RWD and 4WD cars.

Here in the UK most of the very quickest Group N touring car R32 GTR's, in their heyday, ran 1000 plus pound inch front springs and around 700 lbs inch rears. They were fully caged, so the shells were a LOT stiffer than stock, but it seems to differ greatly from SK's findings, even given the big weight differences between RWD and 4WD cars.

Since we race a Production R32GTR N1 spec and an Improved Production R32GTR I guess I can comment on the differences;

Group N cars aren't allowed to change their stabiliser bars, so they have to run high spring rates front and rear to compensate.

Group N cars aren't allowed to change their anti dive, so they have to run high front spring rates to compensate.

Group N cars aren't allowed to change their anti squat, so they have to run high rear spring rates to compensate.

Group N cars aren't allowed to change their caster, so they have to run high front spring rates to control the roll enough for the camber to compensate.

Group N cars are allowed to run full slick racing tyres, which will tolerate a much higher spring rate than a road radial or even an "R" tyre.

Lastly, shock absorber technology has moved a long way since 1989 and we simply don't have to run the high spring rates now that we did then.

Hope that answered the question.

:) cheers :(

PS; The tracks in the UK are a lot smoother than what we have locally.

Edited by Sydneykid
  • 2 weeks later...

:) Hi

I have a question about the spring rates on my car.

l own a r33 gtst and it feels like l'm in the flintstones car, it is that stiff l dont like driving it,

l called whiteline and they said they could make some springs up for me, however l'm not too sure on the spring rate to give them. l was advised at 6kg for front and 4 kg for the rear. Can anyone give me a comparison as to what 6/kg 4/kg would feel like? (not so smoothe roads still feel heaps bumpy??)

After driving my car for the past few months l am really sick of it.

what is the best rate for me?

I am just driving it to and from work, l dont race it ( i'll still have these coils to changeover if l ever want to), rarley thrash it. l just want more comfort over potholes and dips in roads. (right now reflector's on the road feel like potholes, and potholes feel like l'm driving on a cattle grid.)

l am about to measure the springs now to give to Whiteline. They want to know the inside diameter of the spring and the spring height.

and my last question is ( if l can explain myself properly)

When l give these dimensions to them will factor in the softer rate that l want and give me a longer spring to compensate the "squish" ( l'm sure thats not the correct terminology) or compression its going to be under?

l have JIC coilovers, and there yellow( l dont know if they colour code their shocks just a bit of FYI)

Sorry for the longass post and for any one that has read this far and those that reply, thanks in advance. :)

13 & 8.7 kg/mm is beyond belief. We run 6 & 4.5 kg/mm on the 2WD race cars and 4 & 3.5 kg/mm on the 2WD road cars. (SK)

- As stated by SK, the 4 and 3.5kg/mm im sure would be fine for your road car which sees no track work. About the springs, i think they will make them to the same as what you have on now, they will just be a weaker spring.

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 everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
×
×
  • Create New...