Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Like a bull out of a gate!!!

Nice way to start ....1 day into having the car!!!!

.....I think I lasted 3 day's before I did a full dump back exhaust and another 2 weeks before the wheels....and the list goes on and on and on ect!.....4 years later and 2 things left to do!!!...maybewhistling.gif

I like to think of it as being organised. I ordered the wheels for it the same day I won the car at auction

I even bought the Tananbe sus before I bought the car banana.gif

ZOMG! Trabant wagon!

looks more like Scott's....being white and all!

....has a better looking grill than Aarons too....not that that would be hard!

Edited by Jetwreck

looks more like Scott's....being white and all!

....has a better looking grill than Aarons too....not that that would be hard!

so if its a better looking grill than mine, its definitely better than yours

Well, I decided I would fit the coil overs today. The stock sus was in very good condition but these Tanabe coil overs ride sooooo much nicer. Not hard at all, nearly the same as standard but just ride the bumps a little nicer. It does sit fairly low with the guards sitting level with the tyres. Looks awesome!

Ill try and post a pic over the weekend for those interested.

Well, I decided I would fit the coil overs today. The stock sus was in very good condition but these Tanabe coil overs ride sooooo much nicer. Not hard at all, nearly the same as standard but just ride the bumps a little nicer. It does sit fairly low with the guards sitting level with the tyres. Looks awesome!

Ill try and post a pic over the weekend for those interested.

would want to see pics thumbsup.gif

which tanabe coils do u have? i used to use tanabe NF springs for my civic, they lower the car but only a tad bit stiffer, there was still a bit of bodyroll until i changed to tein flex...

Washed it today.

Yesterday finished my intake, took bottom resonator out of airbox cut hole bigger for 3" piping from bumper grill.

Also brought 2 more Wolf 18x9.5s, but in +15 offset, so now will be running +30 up front and +15 rear

Is the front generally supposed to be higher or lower then the rear?

It's better to have the rear a little higher, otherwise you start to lose caster; which then promotes understeer.

Even with equal front & rear hub to guard measurements; you will still have an amount of rear rake.

It's better to have the rear a little higher, otherwise you start to lose caster; which then promotes understeer.

Even with equal front & rear hub to guard measurements; you will still have an amount of rear rake.

im not saying youre wrong, just having some input to this conversation :)

but shouldnt the rear be a little lower on a car due to the way cars corner?

Is the front generally supposed to be higher or lower then the rear?

Measuring from the sill panel, mine is 30-35mm higher at the rear than the front. Its hard to tell by eye that it has 30-35mm of rake now. IMO it sits nicely. I might adjust it slightly when the new wheels arrive, this will depend on what tyre sizes I end up using.

When I was younger and into Valiants we would run the rear lower than the front and it understeers badly.

And out of interest, how many of you guys loosen all of your suspension arms and preload the hub and then tighten it all back up when lowering a car? I always do this as it takes the twist out of bushes. If you don't do this it twist the bushes quite a lot. A lot of people don't do this and then wonder why the bushes wear out quickly.

Edited by slippylotion

(1)Measuring from the sill panel, mine is 30-35mm higher at the rear than the front. Its hard to tell by eye that it has 30-35mm of rake now. IMO it sits nicely. I might adjust it slightly when the new wheels arrive, this will depend on what tyre sizes I end up using.

When I was younger and into Valiants we would run the rear lower than the front and it understeers badly.

(2) And out of interest, how many of you guys loosen all of your suspension arms and preload the hub and then tighten it all back up when lowering a car? I always do this as it takes the twist out of bushes. If you don't do this it twist the bushes quite a lot. A lot of people don't do this and then wonder why the bushes wear out quickly.

(1) IMO i wouldnt have the rear lower than the front - considering its 4WD and the body under power is always going to be lower at the rear under these conditions.......... also less understeer!!!

its not like we need to have more weight over the rears for traction anyways

(2) yep.... otherwise u could also find your rear springs move round each time u jack the car up!!!

(1) IMO i wouldnt have the rear lower than the front - considering its 4WD and the body under power is always going to be lower at the rear under these conditions.......... also less understeer!!!

its not like we need to have more weight over the rears for traction anyways

(2) yep.... otherwise u could also find your rear springs move round each time u jack the car up!!!

Not sure what you mean here. My rear is higher than the front. Don't look at wheel arch measurements, look at the sill panel, this is the level line of the car. Wheel arches front to back are often not the same height.

How will the spring move around when they are captured?

Yep, always crack & loosen arms to settle bushes. Usually just run the car up on some ramps once I'm done; easier than preloading arms.

I think the rake on mine is only 10mm front to rear (rear higher).

Iain, I stand by my "Loss of rake equals increased understeer" theory, but it must be in relation to original heights; not just a blanket "Rear high equals awesome handling", probably should have clarified.

They poke out a bit, but nothing too crazy, just gotta roll the lips on the rear and you are sweet. just stretch some 245 tyres

Apologies for harping on about wheels so much - reckon a 19x9.5+15 would fit? It looks as though 19x9.5+22 is wide without being ridiculous, the 7mm should be pretty safe, yeah?

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

    • Cool to see you're on the forum man, think you've met my twin brother a few times (Brent).
    • Yeah...but NA Mercedes V12.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...