Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Gary's pricing is still not bad, and you do get the custom valving and extra circlip grooves that you wouldn't get buying the Bilsteins vanilla from eBay.

true that, I don't have the circlip grooves on mine...

will be offlloading my set in a few months.. they're great on the street, but not that great on the track unfortunately...

Will be moving onto MCAs coilovers :D

true that, I don't have the circlip grooves on mine...

will be offlloading my set in a few months.. they're great on the street, but not that great on the track unfortunately...

Will be moving onto MCAs coilovers :D

Let me know when you plan to get rid of them and how much. I plan to get rid of my coilovers. Too hard for my liking. Do you have good ground clearance?

Let me know when you plan to get rid of them and how much. I plan to get rid of my coilovers. Too hard for my liking. Do you have good ground clearance?

sure thing :)

You've seen my car (I think).. it's not that low. The rears have about a 2cm gap to the guard and the fronts about 3cm.

The Bilstein pbf cattle dog has the following listed:

NISSAN SKYLINE Coupe (R32)

2.0 4x4, 2.0 Turbo 4x4, 2.6 Twin Turbo 4x4

B6 Sport

Front 24-014717

Rear 24-014724

2.0 4x4, 2.0 Turbo 4x4, 2.6 Twin Turbo 4x4

B8

Front 24-016728

Rear 24-016735

My shocks have the following on the stickers:

Front F4-B46-1471-HO

Rears F4-B46-1742-HO

Most people have the B6's but am not sure what the B8's bring to the party. Says they are a shortened version which would be useful at the front, not so much the back. Don't know what the valving differences are, however.

Edited by djr81

B6 (which is the B46 part number) are great shocks. B8 are the next step up in quality. Hard to say how much better they could be than the B6s, seeing as the B6s feel so nice and work so well. But Bilstein aren't in the habit of telling us lies, so they must have something over them. I agonised a bit over the choice - read the Bilstein website a fair bit, and decided to save the money involved iin stepping up to B8.

recommended spring rate for mostly street use with spirited driving on backroads?

B6 (which is the B46 part number) are great shocks. B8 are the next step up in quality. Hard to say how much better they could be than the B6s, seeing as the B6s feel so nice and work so well. But Bilstein aren't in the habit of telling us lies, so they must have something over them. I agonised a bit over the choice - read the Bilstein website a fair bit, and decided to save the money involved iin stepping up to B8.

I have R32 GTSt, so my comments are kinda relevant to GTR, but with some limitations. So read this with at least one squinted eye.

Stock GTSt spring rates are <3kg/mm. The Kings low and the Whiteline spring that Gary recommends for GTSt with his Bilsteins are about 4kg/mm. I tried these and for whatever reason they simply don't work. They were far too low and could not be set up high enough. So I ended up with the Kings lows for GTRs. These are >5 kg/mm. They are quite firm, but the Bilsteins give great control.

I would expect that they would still be great on GTR, even with the extra weight.

I have posted fairly extensively on this experience some months back, so search up those posts for more accurate numbers and my sad but happy ending story.

It depends. The biggest problem is getting a decent amount of travel t the front. I would recommend Eibach 65 dia springs, 5/5.5/6 kg/mm front and depending on your preference probably a kg/mm softer at the rear. Use 10" spring if at all possible and make sure you get some strut tops as without them the suspension travel is hopeless.

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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...