Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

To be honest, it doesn't sound ideal from the perspective of a road car. I'm kind of surprised no one makes adjustable fronts with some sort of bush, either poly or rubber, instead of a beating. Unless there's one I don't know of. Might be better to just use adjustable bushes.

 

Regarding sway bar links, are you using ones with ball joints on both ends, or bushings on one end and a ball joint on the other (semi-rigid)?

 

Edited by Matvei27

Keep in mind that with R32 upper arms, bushes of any sort are AIDS. Anal AIDS. Festering, dripping anal AIDS. With extra herpes. You do not want them. Bearings are more than 9000% better.

There's nothing wrong with the bearings that are in the ends of any of the adjustable length arms (the ones with sliding centre sections). What is wrong is that the design of the suspension puts stupidly large loads into those bearings as the arm swings up and down, because of the twist that occurs. This is why the OEM arms have the big hydro-squishy bushes in them, and why poly bushes cop a hiding when retrofitted. If the bearings are multi-element (like ball bearings or roller bearings), they don't love the abuse. That's probably 90+% of all adjustable arm options.

The big sphericals in the GK-Tech arms would probably take the abuse, but they don't need to, because the flexible design takes that load out of them.

To clarify regarding sway bar links. I have ARC swaybars and ARC 'semi rigid' rear links that have bushes on one end and joints on the other. I've also seen Nagisa auto ones with joints on both ends (second picture). Not sure if it makes a huge difference but I thought semirigid would be better than full rigid for the road.

Not sure what to get for the front links. 

S13-R.jpg

nisan_pillowlink_kit_R.jpg

Edited by Matvei27

Well, neither of those are any good because they are not adjustable length. It's almost essential to be able to set the length on the droplinks to prevent the bar or the links fouling on other stuff when you have adjustable bars where you move from hole to hole to change the bar.

I have (or perhaps, had) these on the rear

https://www.whiteline.com.au/product_detail4.php?part_number=KLC109&sq=30367

Balls at both ends. I suspect that they might have been changed out last time my bro-in-law had the car up on the hoist because I think I'd managed to damage one (through stupidity). It's a fine detail either way. He might not have put the same ones back on.

I think I have these on these on the front.

https://au.gktech.com/s13-180sx-s14-s15-front-swaybar-end-links

I don't think it is possible to do something similar to the Whiteline rears on the front.

What you need to use depends on the orientation of the holes in the bars. Not all the aftermarket bars have the same orientation as the stockers.

Well, neither of those are any good because they are not adjustable length. It's almost essential to be able to set the length on the droplinks to prevent the bar or the links fouling on other stuff when you have adjustable bars where you move from hole to hole to change the bar.

I have (or perhaps, had) these on the rear

https://www.whiteline.com.au/product_detail4.php?part_number=KLC109&sq=30367

Balls at both ends. I suspect that they might have been changed out last time my bro-in-law had the car up on the hoist because I think I'd managed to damage one (through stupidity). It's a fine detail either way. He might not have put the same ones back on.

I think I have these on these on the front.

https://au.gktech.com/s13-180sx-s14-s15-front-swaybar-end-links

I don't think it is possible to do something similar to the Whiteline rears on the front.

What you need to use depends on the orientation of the holes in the bars. Not all the aftermarket bars have the same orientation as the stockers.

12 hours ago, alexj said:

The gtst has nismo fucas bushes and whiteline tension rod bushes

Just noticed this statement. Why the Nismo FUCAs with adjustable (white line/superpro?) bushes vs the regular arm? Isn't the Nismo arm for the GTST identical to the OEM one?

 

My gtst has nismo bushes in the standard fucas. This is just an attempt to fit something that could have longer life than the standard bushes which wear out fairly fast. There isn't any adjustment for camber with just the nismo bushes but the drop in ride height from the teins adds a useful little bit of negative camber, which was a good enough for my needs.

The whiteline tension rod bushes have an eccentric adjuster to add a little bit of caster.

Nismo also do a kit for the gtr which moves the holes in the inner mount bracket of the fucas. Which helps a bit with the bad geometry. That bracket would work on a gtst. I can't remember if the rest of the kit is gtr specific. I think it is as it also has a longer lower arm iirc.

Sounds like gtsboy had a particularly bad time with poly bushes, I didn't, but that was with very different conditions and usage, and your situation will be more like his than mine.

I'm not sure you need adjustable fucas for you application anyway tbh.

Edited by alexj

I guess whether I need adjustable camber in the front and more than normally available in the rear depends on how far I lower the coilovers, though it seems like adjustable castor would be useful at any height?

My understanding was that reaching an ideal ride height would require a way to adjust camber in the front and more in the rear.

Edited by Matvei27

It's caster that makes the issue with the upper arm geometry more obvious and flogs out the bushes sooner. Even for race use I ended up backing out some caster to stop having to replace upper bushes every event

If the adjustable bushings from white line and the like tend to crack, what about shorter fucas with rubber bushes? The nismos are standard length, but it looks like once upon a time JIC sold shortened fucas with standard rubber bushings, and I could probably find a set.

Edit: seems they might be too short though? Looks like they came in -10 or -20mm sizes.

Edited by Matvei27
9 hours ago, Matvei27 said:

They're discontinued. Is it worth buying a used set?

You can just drill the different holes into factory mounts. There's a thread on this site with the required dimensions.

I haven't done it yet, because it's not really required with the GKTech arms, as it is largely about improving the arc that the arms swing through and the GKTechs banish that issue.

And Duncan is correct. When you add caster you make the situation for the upper bushes worse. So you can only add a very little amount of caster over stock without causing binding. You can actually feel it if you swing the suspension by hand (with spring & damper unit removed, so you can swing it by hand).

The realigned arm inner bolt holes in the Nismo bracket design alleviate that a bit and allow a little more caster. But the only real solution is the articulated arm. The GKTech arm is based on the Group A design (I think that was the Gibson cars, not the Jap Group A). The UAS arms are a reasonable alternative idea, but my experience with them is that they get thrashed in a worse way even that other arms. It's sad, because they are otherwise a good idea.

While I appreciate the GKtech being a superior design, the amount you've had to fuss with it scares me away a bit seeing as this is a road car. 

Is there any reason I shouldn't just get some nismo arm mounts, and either whiteline adjustable bushes in the OEM/nismo arm, or JIC -10mm rubber bushed arms? 

That combined with ikeya or hardrace tension rods, and hardrace rear upper and traction rods sounds like it would be able to align my car at the theoretically ideal 350mm height without resorting to rose joints.

 

Edited by Matvei27

The fact that the car drives better on the GKTechs is enough or me.

Having gone through the teething/learning stage, I'm never going back. Poly bushes have cost me much more sanity over the years than the last couple of years of experimenting with different swivelling arms has.

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

    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
    • A 180SX has a much better look than a FD. The roofline is far superior being a fastback. It's popups look better. In a world where we all subconsciously add a little bit of low, and wheels of our preference, it's just more handsome than the FD is. The FD just looks 'bubbly' in comparison. It can come down to preference, sure. But "The FD is the BEST looking (on appearances alone) 90's JDM car without question?" Nah. Plenty of questions lol. I could think of 8 cars I think look fundamentally better, and probably a handful of ones that look about on par with a FD. (like say a SW20 MR2) I feel people like/overrate the FD because of it's mythicality/rarity, its rotary and it's unpredictable nature. It probably drives great, you can stuff a ton of tyre under there, has a unique sound, light as hell. I feel that people reading this thinking "YOU CANT RATE A 180 ABOVE A FD BECAUSE A 180 IS A CHEAP DRIFT BUCKET" prove the point about bias as to what the car represents, moreso than how it actually looks.. I feel the 80's boxy/squared off look is becoming better looking due to time, and 90's melted soap bar aesthetics have not aged well. (yet?) And this thread is purely about looks :p
×
×
  • Create New...