Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thanks heaps mate. I just checked my rear springs, and to my suprise they are 200.16.006, so only 6kg in the rear, as oppose to the 8kg stated on the website, i will check my fronts tommorow, it will either be 12kg (as website states), or 8kg, like the others on the site, maybe they realised 12/8 is an extreme cambination for r33's?......either way even with 6kg rears, i still get a harsh ride....

Sydneykid, i will get you my coil details tommorow, as they are written on the coil itself, should b easy as.......once you get the details, will the springs you supply(if you do), be a perfect fit for my shocks?

Last question....what does changing spring rates effect, and will it have much impact handling wise?, and will i still have height adjustability?

Thanks heaps mate. I just checked my rear springs, and to my suprise they are 200.16.006, so only 6kg in the rear, as oppose to the 8kg stated on the website, i will check my fronts tommorow, it will either be 12kg (as website states), or 8kg, like the others on the site, maybe they realised 12/8 is an extreme cambination for r33's?......either way even with 6kg rears, i still get a harsh ride....

Sydneykid, i will get you my coil details tommorow, as they are written on the coil itself, should b easy as.......once you get the details, will the springs you supply(if you do), be a perfect fit for my shocks?

Last question....what does changing spring rates effect, and will it have much impact handling wise?, and will i still have height adjustability?

Front 180.62.012, that means 180 mm free height, 62 mm ID and 12 kg/mm spring rate

Rear 200.62.008 , that means 200 mm free height, 62 mm ID and 8 kg/mm spring

200.16.006 doesn't make sense, is it a typo?

You need to measure the free height and the ID just to be sure. The numbering convention says 200 mm free height and 62 mm (2 1/2") ID. So all I have to do is order some Eibach springs for the rear with the same free height and ID, but wiht a more applicable spring rate, say around 4kg/mm.

The free height difference in the front (180 mm versus 200 mm) can be accommodated in the height adjustment. Which you will have to do anyway as the lower rate springs will compress more with the weight of the car on them.

To answer your questions;

Usually when you use more appropriate spring rates the handling improves, you have more traction as the tyres don't leap from bump to bump, they actually stay on the road.

Yes, the height adjustability stays, just changing the spring rate, that's all.

:O cheers :)

Edited by Sydneykid

cheers, will it definitely be the rears that are causing me the problems mate?and since atm the rears are 6kg, putting those to the front and say 4kg to the rears, would that be a good combo?it definitely feels as those the wheels are off the road at certain times, and having set the damper to soft doesnt make much difference.

For what its worth, the damper adjusts both bound/rebound

cheers,

p.s pm me iwth some rough estimates for the rear springs, im in nz btw

thanks

"The free height difference in the front (180 mm versus 200 mm) can be accommodated in the height adjustment. Which you will have to do anyway as the lower rate springs will compress more with the weight of the car on them."

does this mean the new springs will be 200mm height adjustables, like the rears currently, does that mean the car will go lower

Edited by nsta
"The free height difference in the front (180 mm versus 200 mm) can be accommodated in the height adjustment. Which you will have to do anyway as the lower rate springs will compress more with the weight of the car on them."

does this mean the new springs will be 200mm height adjustables, like the rears currently, does that mean the car will go lower

If you want it to, yes the springs are shorter by 20 mm.

:cool: cheers :)

as long as i can go as low as i can now with my coilovers im happy(just for show days i tend to drop it). The lowest possible setting on the coilovers for the rear, as not very low keep in mind.........so if i can keep the springs the same length, or longer (so i can go lower) that would really help.

cheers

i'll get back to you l8r on about my correct spring rate/id/height

sorry mate, my no's were way off.....and to my suprise, checking my spring rates after pulling out the wheels....here are the figures...

Front: 62.180.014 (no typo here!)

Rear: 62.200.006

That front spring rate is extreme.....

One thing though, even though the rear has more height adjustment then the fronts, the rear doesnt go nearly as low as the front can....is this common with r33's?

sorry mate, my no's were way off.....and to my suprise, checking my spring rates after pulling out the wheels....here are the figures...

Front: 62.180.014 (no typo here!)

Rear: 62.200.006

That front spring rate is extreme.....

One thing though, even though the rear has more height adjustment then the fronts, the rear doesnt go nearly as low as the front can....is this common with r33's?

The suspension geometry on the rear is the limiting factor. It all turns to shyte when you get it below 340 mm. The front is somewhat more tolerant, the geometry doesn't get too ugly until 325 mm.

:( cheers :P

Edited by Sydneykid

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

    • Cool to see you're on the forum man, think you've met my twin brother a few times (Brent).
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...