Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I recently purchased a set of R33 GTR wheels for track use on my R33 GTST. Rears are perfect. Fronts.. no so perfect.

The problem only occurs with the front passenger side wheel. At full lock to the left the inside edge of the wheel touches the suspension arm that runs parallel to the shock absorber. At full lock to the right, the front driver's side wheel doesn't have the same issue but it does come very close.

I've checked everything as best as I can and there are no obvious bent suspension components or anything like that. However, by sight I can see that the front passenger side has more negative camber than the drivers side. I confirmed this by checking out my last wheel alignment report.

Front Left: -2 deg 24'

Front Right: -1 deg 42'

I think reducing the amount of negative camber on the left may help but wanted to get opinions. SydneyKid's recommendations on camber for road use are -1 deg (as I found in the group buy kit recommendations).

I'm also getting the front raised. Currently the wheel centre to arch measurement is about 330mm so I plan to raise it by 10mm. That will help solve the typical scrubbing issue but after speaking to a suspension shop on the phone today it seems unlikely that it will stop the rim from hitting the suspension arm.

Spacers have been suggested but I really don't want to go down that path. Someone please help.. I want to hold onto these wheels!

Yep, the alignment is going to get a look hopefully this weekend. I really hope that fixes it because other than that everything looks okay.

I also know someone that's run the GTR wheels without issues on a GTS-T. The only difference was that theirs wasn't lowered.

I don't exactly have my car lowered alot... rears are 350mm, front about 325-330mm (wheel centre to top of arch measurements). I'm having the front raised to at least 340mm. If I measure from the floor to the bottom sill the back end is about 20mm higher than the front so after I raise the front it should make the drop about 10mm (which is supposed to me more ideal from what I've been reading).

Yep, the alignment is going to get a look hopefully this weekend. I really hope that fixes it because other than that everything looks okay.

I also know someone that's run the GTR wheels without issues on a GTS-T. The only difference was that theirs wasn't lowered.

I don't exactly have my car lowered alot... rears are 350mm, front about 325-330mm (wheel centre to top of arch measurements). I'm having the front raised to at least 340mm. If I measure from the floor to the bottom sill the back end is about 20mm higher than the front so after I raise the front it should make the drop about 10mm (which is supposed to me more ideal from what I've been reading).

The best height for handling and ride comfort in a GTST is 350 mm front and 340 mm rear. That gives ~10 mm rake (nose down) at the sills.

I am not sure that adjusting the camber will help. The relationship between the upright and the wheel doesn't change much when you change the camber. Caster might be a better option, see what the wheel alignment reveals.

Cheers

Gary

  • Like 1
The best height for handling and ride comfort in a GTST is 350 mm front and 340 mm rear. That gives ~10 mm rake (nose down) at the sills.

I am not sure that adjusting the camber will help. The relationship between the upright and the wheel doesn't change much when you change the camber. Caster might be a better option, see what the wheel alignment reveals.

Cheers

Gary

Hi Gary. I've read your recommendations before but there must be something weird with my car. I took some measurements the other night and this is what I got.

Front Left: 330

Front Right: 330

Rear Left: 350

Rear Right: 345

Rake: ~20mm nose down.

...so taking your recommendation to raise the front to 350mm (up 20mm) and lower the back to 340mm (down 10mm) it sounds like my rake would be 10mm with the nose up. :)

My measurements may be a little out but I even turned the car around and re-measured just in case the surface I was on was a little uneven and throwing things out.

I should also mention that I have the sub-frame bushes in the rear. They're currently set to the "middle" setting (can't remember what the proper name for it was).

Edit: I just realised that a 10mm adjustment (measured from the wheel centre to the arch) won't necessarily equate to a 10mm difference when measured at the sill next to the relevant wheel. So my final rake calculation of 10mm nose up is probably out.

...so taking your recommendation to raise the front to 350mm (up 20mm) and lower the back to 340mm (down 10mm) it sounds like my rake would be 10mm with the nose up. :)

Note SK said "at the sills". Compare the top of the wheel arch to sill at the front and back. I'd imagine they are 20mm different, hence why its 10mm nose down.

Well I've just been out conducting a little experiment. I jacked the car up slightly in the front centre so that from the middle of the wheels to the top of the arch at the front it sat at 350mm (a 20mm increase from the height it was).

Raising the front slightly seemed to make the back squat just a little as on measuring the rear it was 340mm (down from 345-350).

When I measured the rake with this setup it was about 5mm (nose down).

Thanks for your suggestion Adam (I only just realised what you meant). I'll check that out tomorrow and see if there is a 20mm difference.

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

    • From my youth: GTi-R clutch change is a massive pain. The gearboxes are fragile? But the car is super cool and I want one 馃槩 
    • Remember this is 1988 tech.
    • Driveline vibration is resolved. I ended up loosening all my engine mount and trans mount bolts, giving it a good shake then retightening everything and it's gone... Let's just say I was surprised that fixed it.  I've been happily driving it around again but unfortunately put zero time into my direct port/constant pressure WMI setup. I'm on vacation next week, so I'll try and finalize it then.  On a different note, I spent all week fuel/ignition mapping 2x 216L V16 engines. Turbo's were burning glycol and we swapped them out for larger units. We also had planned emissions testing on site, so I figured I'd be there the same week to use their instrumentation and massage any emissions issues out if needed. This was a first for me. Fuel management is similar in certain ways to automotive (i.e air density as load variable) but very different in others. It's all PLC based and AFR's are controlled by air and not fuel. They use a control valve between the turbo and air manifold to control pressure which in turn controls AFR's. Due to this, target AFR tables supplied by the OEM are in pressures and not mass which really through me off. They use air pressure vs fuel pressure tables. I also relied on an O2 concentration sensor the emissions team had in the exhaust. Ignition timing was also all over the place and we were losing a fair bit of power. They're now happily sitting at 16-40BTDC depending on load. We were making about 1600kw at 900rpm at 90% load. Engines were running a lot smoother as well.    
    • heh, aint no R32 ever meeting modern targa cage rules unless the driver is veeeery short OP, good luck with the sale, since its already in the land of freedom I'm sure you will find a good buyer.
    • meh, it was a good video, clear about the issue and how he dealt with it. A bit heavy on the RTV and very brave to put an RB in anything without rebuilding it first, but otherwise I thought it was good Dose, I'm not sure that having the pickup forward is a big issue; yes of course the oil could shift under brakes but the sump should never be empty enough for that to be a problem (unless you also have a higher volume oil pump, and that oil can't return from the head to the sump quickly enough)
  • Create New...