Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Im looking to correct the horrible rear camber on my R33. Presently the car sits at 345/340 f/r on Tein HR coilovers, however in around 3-4 months time I will hopefully be getting the SK group buy whitelie and bilsteins as the teins are far to harsh for Street. HOWEVER I need new tyres in a few weeks, and I want to fix the camber now so I dont ruin my new tyres.

SO if I get the whiteline KCA347, will I need one or 2 kits to correct the camber at this height to about -0.75 deg (think its about -2.5/3 at the moment)

AND

Can I then readjust it when I get the bilstein package, with a height of 345 rear? ie. how do crush tubes work, do they crush once and thats it?

THANKS!

Lee

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/166797-rear-camber-kit-and-changing-height/
Share on other sites

If you are running a 340mm rear ride height, you shouldn't have -2.5deg camber, as it's not that low. One camber kit should be all you need and should get you back to 0.75deg (did on mine anyway).

You can reset the bushes when you reset the height, just remove the end of the arm with the adjustable bush, and turn it with some multigrips. Set them to the 3 o'clock position so they make the arms as long as possible. The wheel aligner can then make fine adjustments with the stock camber pin.

Thanks for the help Salad.

I just presumed it was about 2.5 deg as the outer tread has about 3mm or so of tread, and the inner is basically a slick :P

Well I'll try one kit for now and see how it goes,

Cheers

Well I had new tyres fitted to the front earlier today, and had them check the wheel alignment. Car is as follows:

Rear Camber

Right -1.39 deg

Left -1.42 deg

Rear Toe

Right +7.8mm

Left +5.8mm

FrontCamber

Right -1.40 deg

Left -1.24 deg

Front Toe

Right +2.6mm

Left +4.4mm

SO

One whiteline KCA374 will be fitted to the back to bring Camber back to around -.75 degrees. Can the other items (front camber, front/rear toe) be adjusted to be even? Im not looking at aftermarket kits, but just if there is enough adjustment to make them even again.

Cheers :huh:

You have a lot of toe there... there is plenty of adjustment for toe so they'll be able to even it up and reduce it. One camber kit will get rid of the excess camber you have now, so that will be fine. The front camber is OK, I wouldn't worry about it too much. What's your caster like? Might be an idea to get those bushes aswell as they help handling a fair bit too :huh:

Caster didnt show up on the report.. just had ## for some reason?

Caster kit can come later, but Happy I just need 1 camber kit for now :huh:

Cheers for ya help salad!

PS do you work for a suspension shop here in Adelaide or just knowledgable?

(looking for alignment once bushes fitted, would rather not just have bob jane do it :P ).

Go to Adelaide Radial Tyre :)

Great wheel alignment machine and Matt there will set your car up to your specs as you want. The one at my work is crappy so I dont even use it, always get em done at Adelaide Radial. They can press the bushes in if you need it too.

hrrmmm, A R T is on the other side of town to me :blink: I work in the city and had Light Wheel Alignment recommended to me, any thoughts?

Also, I get a dull thud from the rear of my car on rough rds. I have a feeling some of the bushes in the rear are not the healthiest, can you suggest anywhere other than pedders to have the suspension inspected/tested? Or are Pedders ok for this?

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...