Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

think it's worth getting Cusco rear/Whiteline front, or just buy the nismo kit for front and rear?

This has been shitting me for a while, about time i got around to it.

Or should i say worth buying the nismo kit as it is more kesh....

Edited by Anfanee

think it's worth getting Cusco rear/Whiteline front, or just buy the nismo kit for front and rear?

This has been shitting me for a while, about time i got around to it.

Or should i say worth buying the nismo kit as it is more kesh....

The problem with it all is the different manufacturers use different tube/rod – some are hollow, some (Whiteline) are solid and none quote the same figures for comparison purposes. I haven’t yet seen anyone quote an inside diameter – not for the standard type or the aftermarket stuff either. You can make some guesses (I haven’t seen spring steel in tube) as to the wall thickness but they are just guesses. Anyway here is what I can find.

Standard

Front 20mm od - hollow.

Rear 25.4mm

Nismo

Front 22.2 od (hollow) and quoted at 18.1N/mm whatever that means.

Read 27.2 od (hollow) and quoted at 113.9N/mm

Cusco

Front 24mm and 190% stiffer than standard. I take this to mean 1.9 times the standard rate but may be 2.9. 1.9 appears more likely.

Rear 30mm and 162% stiffer than standard.

There also may (MAY) be a 24mm adjustable front (Part number quoted 282 311AJ24) and a 28mm non adjustable rear 282 311 B28 (quoted at 185% compare to standard). These I have never seen.

Whiteline

Front 22mm solid bar.

Rear 24mm solid bar.

Both are adjustable. Extra stiffness is not stated.

ARC

Front No diameter shown but 2.4 x standard rate. Adjustable.

Rear No diameter shown but 1.8 x standard rate. Adjustable. Also $$$$’s.

Maybe someone else has some figures or an idea or what tube would be used – the Cusco appears to be metric in size, the other Japanese Imperial.

FWIW I have a Cusco rear and a Whiteline front. Can always add front stiffness in if the rear is too much.

I own both a R32 GTR and a S2000.

I can assure you, the S2000 will always out brake you and have a higher mid corner speed, stock for stock.

Mod for mod, same again.

Your only saving grace will be the ability to get on the power quicker and pull away on the straight sections.

Then watch the S2000 start pulling you in on the corners and twisties. :)

If it upsets you, stick to tracks with long straight sections, minimal corners or wet days......

Too true.

Except I wouldn't say minimal corners. The tighter the corners the more a 32-34 GTR will lose to S2000's, 86's etc. Fast sweeping corners on the other hand the GTR's will do well on. (i.e Phillip Island)

  • Like 1

N/mm would say that you require X Newtons of force to deflect the ends of the bar apart from rest position by 1mm.

The Cusco bar claiming 190% stiffer would not be 190% stiffer. It would be 190% of original stiffness. So 90% stiffer. That's just based on doing (24^4)/(20^4) and coming up with a ratio of 2. That would be about right regardless of the difference in wall thickness between original and the Cusco bar, and would easily explain the difference between 1.9 climed and 2.0 calculated.

The Whiteline front 24mm bar will be a bit more than double the stiffness of the original, seeing as it is solid and the original is hollow.

None of the these bars would be made out of tube or pipe type products. You can buy hollow bar in various sizes. I would suspect that most hollow bars have very thick walls.

If you want to know how to calculate the effect of the hollow centre, the stiffness of a 24mm solid bar is proportional to the 4th power of that diameter. So just call it 24^4. The stiffness of the hollow bar is proportional to the difference between the diameter of the that is there and the the diameter of the steel that has been removed (from the solid bar). So a 24mm OD 18mm ID bar would have stiffness 24^4 - 18^4, which is only 68% of the solid bar. Hence why I suspect that hollow bars must have very thick walls.

All of the above assumes the same material properties between different manufacturers, which is of course not necessarily true. Probably close enough most of the time, but certainly not to be relied upon if trying to pick them to within 10%.

Okay....

So....

Full whiteline, full nismo, or full Cusco?

Cost i don't really care about.

Opinions on what to buy........

If it helps Anf I have whiteline front and rear with HD links at both ends

Car is muff stiffer all round (especially front end) yet to test it out on track but on the road you point where you want it go and it shoots there instantly where before it was sluggish.

Whiiteline is fairly reasonable price wise and even got a free strut front strut brace (no doubt still managed to pay for it somehow)

But since you mentioned you dont care about costs - you know you want nismo :D

FWIW i emailled support@whiteline.com.au the question "Can you tell me how much stiffer this bar is, when using the hard setting, over standard?" (subject of email was BNR26XZ stiffness spec over standard). The response was:

"This bar is much bigger than OE and as a result, you will see an increase of approx. 230-250% in rate."

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

    • Got the gearbox in and the front drive shafts.
    • Hi There I went through a rabbit hole of reading about Xenon headlights and the ADR regulations for having them installed. As people have been defected by running factory xenon I was researching in ways to make them compliant. Everyone always say needs to be self leveling and have washer installed, which I don't necessarily agree with. For this argument I'm using R34 as reference as I'm more aware on the construction of the headlight compared to the R33 Xenon, which may still be the exact same case.   For the self leveling clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles As you can see the bold text "these manually adjustable devices from driver seats" are fine to use. As Series 1 Xenon model headlights do have a 4 level adjuster on the right near the ignition (however not series 2) then these model are consider compliant in that argument.   For the Self Cleaning aspect of this argument clause taken from ADR 13 - Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles Now i can understand the argument that Xenon will need a washer as they are over 2000 lumens, but I clicked on the 12 at the end of that sentence and it takes me to the end notes which states R34 for headlight lenses are plastic, not sure if PL is mark as I don't currently have my skyline to confirm that marking is there. But could you not technically get a lenses with the PL marking on it and then get away with the argument that you need a washer. I went through a quick read of the adr and might have missed something else that may cause them to be non-complaint.    But wouldn't these technically be complaint headlights   Would love to hear other people input on this and shed some light   Edit In regard to the the washer portion I might be mistaken ADR 45 (which I believe is Regulation NO.45) states 12 cd (candela) I dont understand that portion in regarding to calculating the candela if anyone can shed some light. Otherwise I guess throw in a washer for the headlight and you definitely comply.
    • Took it to all Japan day, flogged the hell out of it and took it all, am a very very happy man  don’t know how that ended up in Greg’s thread before
    • Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
×
×
  • Create New...