Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi, Guys !

I'm new here, so don't give me hard time due to my first post :D.

Studying in China, Beijing right now. And had this stupid idea bugging my head for a couple of months.

They have a31 here (Rb20de and rb24e carby). There are all LHD.

So I've been thinking if I get one a31 and get all the gt-r running gear into the car. I know with the right money everything's possible, but has anyone done it before ?

I've seen jz, rb26 powered a31, but I'm deffinetly sure there were no 4wd ones.

I've heard that the RB26 front cv joints won't be able to reach the hubs, due to different suspension geometry etc.

Can some one please clear those things up for me, so I won't have any stupid ideas anymore ? lol

Thanks in advance!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/119120-rb26-atessa-a31-possible/
Share on other sites

Cefiros came out with atessa out of the factory, rare as but yuup, came out from factory with rb20det's

they were the Nissan Cefiro SE-4

chassis code ELNA31.

so if you found one of these theres no reason you wouldnt be able 2 bolt up an rb26 to it. :D

Edited by KICKIN

Importing one is a huge problem. And RHDs are banned here ? Stupid laws. For stupid people :D

So if I will have to do the work by myself. What should I really look into ? Swap the whole GTR suspension ? It's like building one from scrap lol :ermm:

im not able to find much info on it as its a rare mofo but heres a link.

hope you speak multiple languages...

hehe.

cefiro links

http://www.auto.vl.ru/catalog/nissan/cefiro/1992_5/

And a link from our very own meggala (steve)

http://www.meggala.com/1cefiro/cefiropage.html

Edited by KICKIN

I have one of these elna31's :) its currently running a gtr32 g/b as they came as 100% factory auto i was thinkin of doing the rb26 attessa thing with it but im just gonna drop the whole lot out and make it rb25 rwd :)

ANd they also have the exact same double wishbone setup as the 32's not the og s13 style

wanna buy it :)

Edited by etbenno
  • 1 month later...

Sorry for diggin up and old post, and sorry if it seems a silly question...

But......do the A31 Ceffys, in RWD guise, use the same strut front end (or simmilar to) an S13? And the AWD use the same as an R32? Or do all Ceffys use the same R32 wishbone style suspension?

AWD ceffys have a different chassis to the RWD ones (just like GTS4's have the same chassis as GTR's and not GTSt's), so their suspension geometry is also accordingly different

Hmmmmm.........

Interesting....as the S13 front suspension fits into an R31......And I have been toying with the thought of an AWD r31 using the A31 AWD gear....that was assuming the AWD front end was like the S13 front end may have made my job easier.

Well....Not much has happened....I have a 26 powered R31 and have been thinking of doing the AWD for some time now.

Realisitcally I am doing as much background working out as I can before I do anything.

a group in the US is putting an RB26DETT and AWD drivetrain into an S14, so if you put your mind to it, and have the $$$ to back it up, then it should be possible.

But yeah, converting a RWD cef to AWD is a bit of a waste of time, when you can already buy AWD ceffy chassis from factory. There's heaps of em in the snowy/mountain areas of japan.

As for AWD R31... hmmm nice idea, but isn't the Nissan Langley 4WD GT pretty much the same?

yeah true... its more like a AWD bluebird than an R31. Very cool idea. Bit of a beyotch to do, you'd have to fabricate new chassis rails to accomodate front axles etc.

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...