Jump to content
SAU Community

C210 Ride Height


Recommended Posts

The guy that tuned my car (an old-school Datsun rally driver) convinced me that my car was a menace to drive on account of it being too low in the back and having terrible bump-steer every time the rear end bottomed out.

He told me that he had some "suitable" springs, and supplied and fit them for next to nothing.

I concede that the car does handle much better now... but the height in the rear is back up to standard, and the car looks kind of odd with it's butt sticking up in the air (although apparently the view of my spinning tailshaft when you drive behind me is kind of cool).

Previously the car was on Pedders red "low" springs - so they are out.

My old rally wreck was on yellow King springs which I sold off cheap before I ever tried driving on due to their diabolical reputation, although they did look to be somewhere between high and far too low in terms of ride height. Also I have heard that cutting a springs to lower the ride height is a really stupid idea because it affects the handling of the car (but I won't even pretend that I understand the physics of why that is).

There are springs available from other Datsuns e.g. 240K that will physically fit my car - but the K is slightly lighter than the C210... is this a big issue?

Anyone got any ideas or recommendations?

It's nice to be finally making improvements to my car rather than just repairing the broken bits for once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem in lowering a Datsun/Nissan with the A-arm rear suspension is that you start to toe-out the rear end. Lowering lowers the centre of gravity of the car (good thing, generally), but also affects the roll centre (probably a good thing).

The K springs are probably a softer spring, which is probably advantageous to get the arse to squat under acceleration. From experience, super heavy rear springs prevent the rear end putting power to the ground, especially in the wet.

Cutting springs is not a problem, as long as the spring can remain captive at full droop. It gives a "stronger" spring as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed; the adapter set up sounds unreal... did you buy it or make it?

I read some of the other posts re: s13 conversions, but missed some fairly vital info. Do I need to purchase the S13 coilover spring and shock as an assembly, or will the S13 spring fit over my existing C210 shock? Also is there a spring... tension/weight/setting??? (someone suggested 6kg for the rear) that I need to ask for?

Gordie, if your car is handling well, I'll try and copy what you have done to the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see things are going well with the Datto for you man,

The coilovers should come as a complete set, with the spring on an adjustable perch. Most should come with adjustable shocks too I would think?.

6kg springs should be ok, don't go much harder if you like your spine the way it is.

If you can get some spec's up for those adaptors I might be able to knock some up at work, measurements would have to be spot on tho. Thinking about doing the same with mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i bought the adaptors off a guy who had them in his hr31.

but any machine place you be able to knock some up easy as.

just went and took some pics of what i'll be using.

There are the adaptors

05112009897.jpg

05112009898.jpg

05112009899.jpg

c210 v's s13 coilovers.

05112009900.jpg

05112009901.jpg

and the adaptors on the s13 coilovers

05112009902.jpg

this is the ride hight with the stock springs

101_0088.jpg

(this is when i first got the white car a few years ago)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c210 has 3 bolts on top at the rear. s13 coilovers have 2. so you'll have to drill a hole up top to fit it. that old yellow parts car i sold to nick had this done.

you could just swap the top hats off the suspension?

just undo the 1-2 nuts in the middle and your good. and if you've removed stock springs from a shock before you would know u need spring compressors so the springs dont knock u out.

Edited by Dan_J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could just swap the top hats off the suspension?

just undo the 1-2 nuts in the middle and your good. and if you've removed stock springs from a shock before you would know u need spring compressors so the springs dont knock u out.

yep, you can do it that way, but if you have some good quality coilovers you will lose the pillowball bearing set up, and possable the damper control knob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
    • https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2021-nissan-skyline-400r-auto-rv37/SSE-AD-17857548/ Well there you go 
    • Chris won't reply. He doesn't visit the forum much anymore. You can try these guys https://www.facebook.com/autotainment/ They did mine many years ago
×
×
  • Create New...