Jump to content
SAU Community

R30 Lower Control Arm Lengths

works 510
 Share

Recommended Posts

works 510 Experienced

works 510

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I was under the influence that SWM are just that, last time I saw some for a 1600 they were just torana radius rods machined down.

'machined down' meaning that they have more thread cut into them, not changing the overall diameter.

But hey what would I know, Ive just been running the same style machined radius rods on different cars for the last few years, no breakages to date. :cool:

Edited by works 510
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DR JOSH Community Regular

DR JOSH

Posted
Posted
sweet.

Any pics?

Should be plenty easy in the bluebird when I think about it, already has CA18 and s13 coilys,knuckles etc

I'll see what I can do about getting some pics :ninja:

if u runnin a s13 crossmember, im also assuming u could use a laurel member as well to run a rb ?

No bump steer issues thus far, but as far as I can see there should really be any, as it's pretty much transfering the complete S13 setup from one car to the other with minimal geometry changes. I dont see why you couldnt use a laurel cross member as all mounting points are identical between the S13 an laurel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Factory 5 Mentor

Factory 5

Posted
Posted

If all the bushes up front were new (nolothane orsuch) wouldnt it be alot better?

Look for the various bracings and reinforcements that can be done.

If George Fury & Glen Seaton could smash around the tracks with so much success in the 80's there aint too much reson to change is there?

I guess as Nissan engineered newer cars, the steering designs got better. Newer is normally better hey!

Steerign box rebuild alone costs around the $400 mark, so i guess that cost wont need to be repeated with the s13 spec conversion

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ydr030 Mentor

ydr030

Posted
Posted
If all the bushes up front were new (nolothane orsuch) wouldnt it be alot better?

Look for the various bracings and reinforcements that can be done.

If George Fury & Glen Seaton could smash around the tracks with so much success in the 80's there aint too much reson to change is there?

I guess as Nissan engineered newer cars, the steering designs got better. Newer is normally better hey!

Steerign box rebuild alone costs around the $400 mark, so i guess that cost wont need to be repeated with the s13 spec conversion

yea no wat ya sayin, bak in the 80s the drs were new !

less moving parts has be be better, youd be able to get more lok wit s13 rack + all the aftermarket goddies to go wit it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
works 510 Experienced

works 510

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Engineer wouldnt like my castor rod mods unless they were re-heat treated etc, but I dont see why the s13 front end bits would be a major hassle assuming its a all bolt in affair using standard nissan parts that havent been modified in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghostrider Grand Master

Ghostrider

Posted
Posted
Engineer wouldnt like my castor rod mods unless they were re-heat treated etc, but I dont see why the s13 front end bits would be a major hassle assuming its a all bolt in affair using standard nissan parts that havent been modified in any way?

Changing the crossmember?

Unless the mount holes are identical to the 1600 or R30 & the rails need to be redrilled to suit, the engineer or Vic Roads is going to want to know about it.

Using the R31 crossmember, I know the mount holes are different spacings, cutting & welding the rack mounts onto an R30 crossmember requires engineers approval. Depending on how picky your authorities are and in Vic they are pretty leaniant unless the car is being sold, the S13 bits might create a problem then.

Don't know, but in NSW it's a bit tough, due probably to people like me when back in the 60's we were putting V8's in Morris Minors and 105E Anglias and 1800/2000cc MGB motors in A30's & A40 Farinas without a care in the world. I know 1 guy that put an 4.2 Jag motor into an FE Holden and the torque twisted the chassis/sub frame so that only 3 wheels touched the ground at any one time.

Cheers, D

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
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • GTSBoy
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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).
    • V35_Paul
      Thinking of getting a Q50 300hp and just tuning it instead of getting the Q50 Red or 400R

      By V35_Paul · Posted

    • joshuaho96
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      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. 
×
×
  • Create New...