Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi There,

I currently have stock springs and shocks on my R33 gts-t.

I have the following suspension upgrades:

- 17" 235x45 front

- 17" 255x40 rear..

- Front Strut brace

- rear strut brace

I'm fairly happy with the firmness (and don't want to lower it yet)but it just rolls too much.

Looking for a better ride around corners.. essentially More grip............. I have been speaking with Whiteline and am looking at:

- upgrading sway bar front and back

- new camber/caster kit.

Will this make much of a difference? I don't use it on any tracks just street use, and want more corner speed..

Will the camber kit sacrifice launches (due to the wheels not sitting flat on the road)?? or will I not notice it?

Any advice is welcome especially those that have done this mod..

Regards

Rob

Even though I have camber/caster kits on the front of mine and camber kits on the rear I probably wouldn't worry about that until you start messing around with the ride height, unless you are like me and like playing around with different settings. I would definately recommend getting the sway bars. The adjustable ones from whiteline are great value. I would get them followed by a good set of shocks and you corner speed will increase dramatically as long as your tyres are up to the task. I have Bilsteins all round on mine, very nice.

Upgrading the swaybars improves the turn in. It give you that much condifence. I'm still running stock springs and height. No camber kit but probably get castor kit later. I've also got the diff locking bushes. It helps the rear moving too much through a corner.

Thanks for the advice..

So jlnewton,

You replaced your shocks with aftermarket ones.. Did you fit lower springs as well or leave them stadard?

Will it benefit me in anyway upgrading the shocks and leaving the springs standard?

I think for know I will just go adj sway bars (do I need to go front and back?) and then maybe look at replacing the shocks..

Rob

I also have a series 2 R33 and have had the Whiteline Handling pack (adj sway bars + camber/castor) in for about 6 months. I still have the standard spring and shocks.

Basically the day to day ride quality is no different, not too harsh like with uprated springs/shocks.

The main difference is seen when cornering fast. The car is heaps nicer in and out of corners and feels real stable, good feedback through the wheel and doesn't roll around like a bloated whale when you get the power on early.

The best advantage is when (if...?) you get it out on the track. Dial in a stiffer setting and see if you can lift the inside wheel exiting the hairpins.

Then again, if your shocks have seen a fair amount of action it may be worthwhile replacing them as well. The car is only as good as it's weakest link.

Z.

Mine had lowered springs when I got it, but the standard shocks were pretty ordinary. I would do the shocks, just because if they are standard ones, chances are they are the original one and with their age they are probably pretty tired. But if you are doing things in steps like I did, definately get the adj. sway bars first. They will probably give you the most improvement from a street perspective. I would do front and back as this will allow you to adjust car balance. Whiteline had there demo car set on the stiffest setting at the front for cornering and the middle setting for the rear for grip exiting corners for the circuit test comparison in the HPI story. I will give you the flexibility to set the car the way you like it.

I've pretty much got the same story as JLNewton. Got the car with lowered springs and standard shocks, and tyres that had the insides chewed out and the outsides untouched. Handled like a blimp, didn't feel at all confident with turn-in and teh back lurched out of corners something shocking.

enter the whiteline works kit. around $2K fitted, but possibly the best money spent on the car in terms of driving enjoyment.

now the steering is nice and precise, turn in is great, complete confidence in the car doing what i want it to do, and when i want it to. put the power down out of corners and the back end squats and digs in a bit, with minimal slide. great corner speed, and the ride is stiffer but definately not harsh. set up as in above post.

recommended.

just recently installed the whiteline handling pack (adjustable sways, caster and camber kits) plus a rear cross member brace. i have aftermarket springs and oldish shocks...

for the street, NVH has noticeably increased, body roll has decreased & turn in has improved. predictability has also increased.

on the track its a different story. i have massive understeer. turn in is not the greatest and moreso understeer to oversteer is unpredictable.

all of the above is probably due to the fact camber is set to nuetral on the front and the front sway might be on too stiff a setting. tyre pressures were a little high when understeer was at its worst (42psi) so i dropped them to 38psi (hot) and it made a noticeable difference but still understeering badly.

hopefully with some negative camber and softer swaybar setting on the front turn in will be improved and under to over steer more predictable.

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, 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)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...