Esprit wrote: Unless they're OEM.... I've got "coilovers" (if you want to call them that) and I don't need no cert

Well yes, if you want to split hairs my car also had "coilovers" from the factory. IIRC some 300zx turbo's also come with adjustable suspension as OEM.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think you can also get away with aftermarket shocks that have adjustable valving but not height adjustment.

AzumitH wrote: And? I have engine mods and decent power in my R32, and use KYB shocks (revalved in the front) and King springs (don't think they were super low, camber is still ok). Along with the GTR front sway bar, underbody bracing and locked HICAS rack I think it handles rather well.

Someone who's just spent several hundred dollars on modifying their car though is not the the most impartial voice though... you'd hardly think that you'd spent all that money and time to make your car handle worse.

If you've changed the ride height at ALL and not put in any potential for camber adjustment then it WILL almost certainly handle worse than standard... sure it might FEEL better (stiffer, less roll etc) but stiffness and reduced roll dos not equal better handling.

Not saying that in your exact case this is true but it's a general rule of thumb.... geometry set-up is by far and away the most crucial thing when it comes to setting up a car... damping and spring rates come a little further down the tree.

Tadz wrote: Well yes, if you want to split hairs my car also had "coilovers" from the factory. IIRC some 300zx turbo's also come with adjustable suspension as OEM. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think you can also get away with aftermarket shocks that have adjustable valving but not height adjustment.

Adjustable valving is okay, but adjustable height needs a cert.

I do have adjustable arms for the rear (in a box still though lol), and am looking for camber plates for the front that fit onto the shocks I have. I'm not sure if I need the camber adjustment though, as I have 1.6 degrees neg in the front and 1.3 degrees neg in the back, iirc.

I do fully agree with you Esprit, I have come to realize these past months you are a knowledgable individual lol.

(PS, Am I right in thinking that adjustable top hats also offer castor adjustment?)

AzumitH wrote: I do have adjustable arms for the rear (in a box still though lol), and am looking for camber plates for the front that fit onto the shocks I have. I'm not sure if I need the camber adjustment though, as I have 1.6 degrees neg in the front and 1.3 degrees neg in the back, iirc. I do fully agree with you Esprit, I have come to realize these past months you are a knowledgable individual lol. (PS, Am I right in thinking that adjustable top hats also offer castor adjustment?)

That's a pretty acceptable level of camber you've got. The one thing you need to watch for is the rate of change of camber throughout the whole range of bump/droop. If you've only for that sort of camber then you shouldn't be too badly off though, it's obviously not REALLY low anyway. 1.6 is probably a little high in the front for road use but reasonably negligible. The thing is with most cars (and especially with strut suspension) it's often hard to adjust one thing without affecting another... even if you do have adjustable lower arms etc. If you've got a double-wishbone system however it's MUCH easier as usually adjusting one thing will only have a negligible effect on others so you can get castor set, then ride height, then static camber then bump steer, knowing that each one you change will not affect anything you've already set up.

As for adjustable top-hats, some of them give combination camber/castor adjustment and some of them give pure camber adjustment, depending on the design. Depending on what sort of system you have, castor is usually pretty insignificant, certainly over the range of adjustment that you typically have available. If you're investing in an adjustable top hat you want something that's nice and sturdy and can be easily incrementally adjusted. If it's a McPherson strut system it's also much better if you can get one with a rose-joint/ball bearing pivot as this will always be more geometrically reliable than a bushed type joint.

deprenyl wrote: random newbie question : how are rx7's good on performance with 1300cc engines?

To compare it to a petrol engine, imagine that it's a 1300cc 2 stroke engine or a 2600cc petrol engine.

As that's effectively how much air it consumes in comparison.

I don't have anything against Kyb's either but ill take equivalent Bilsteins or Koni's over them. Guessing what i was trying to say is getting a proven shock\spring combo.

Eagle wrote: I don't have anything against Kyb's either but ill take equivalent Bilsteins or Koni's over them. Guessing what i was trying to say is getting a proven shock\spring combo.

I will agree that the damping in the front was not up to scratch, which is why I got them re-valved to take the bounce out. But other than that I have had no problems with them.

I've got rare as rocking-horse poo BFMP adjustable platform coilovers sitting in the corner of the workshop gathering dust... after all the effort and money I put into obtaining them, it turns out the old shock/spring/swaybar/strut brace setup actually handles quite well.

and I'm loath to stick the coilovers in only to spend the next 18 months pissing around trying to get them right

oh, my SA22C has 8-way adjustable dampers from factory (they still work, too)

Orion wrote: oh, my SA22C has 8-way adjustable dampers from factory (they still work, too)

8-way adjustible?!?!? There's no such thing, 3-way is the most you can get (fast bump, slow bump and rebound).... You mean 8-increment one-way adjustable?

*Edit* Unless the SA22C is actually a DeLorean in disguise and the remaining 5 ways are for adjusting the flux capacitor

Esprit wrote: 8-way adjustible?!?!? There's no such thing, 3-way is the most you can get (fast bump, slow bump and rebound).... You mean 8-increment one-way adjustable?

pah, you know what I mean, even if I don't

Orion wrote: pah, you know what I mean, even if I don't

I used to remember my friend's old Ford Laser TX3i that had adjustible suspension on the dash... was the coolest thing out... had "Normal" (soft all round) "Sport" (hard all round) and "Cruise" (Hard in the front, soft in the rear). Buggered if we could tell any difference between them but damn that was just ice cool!

^ ORG had a Capella C2 coupe years ago - a mid '80s one. That had adjustable dampers as well. Only right front seemed to always be on the softest setting regardless of switch position

Esprit wrote: Adjustable valving is okay, but adjustable height needs a cert.

I have torsion bar independant rear in my 944. there's an eccentric bolt i can adjust to lower the rear. i wouldn't need a cert would I?

fUrBuRgEr wrote: I have torsion bar independant rear in my 944. there's an eccentric bolt i can adjust to lower the rear. i wouldn't need a cert would I?

Nope, as it's OEM. If you'd bought an aftermarket bolt-on exxentric spring mount that bolted in place of a non-adjustable spring mount then yeah, you'd need one.

Given that pretty much all torsion bar systems use a splined torsion bar, they are just about all (by definition) height adjustable

^^ cheers

GaR wrote: ^ ORG had a Capella C2 coupe years ago - a mid '80s one. That had adjustable dampers as well. Only right front seemed to always be on the softest setting regardless of switch position

i remember those levins/ truenos of the late 80's had an sports suspension switch by the handbrake.

Esprit wrote: That's a pretty acceptable level of camber you've got. The one thing you need to watch for is the rate of change of camber throughout the whole range of bump/droop. If you've only for that sort of camber then you shouldn't be too badly off though, it's obviously not REALLY low anyway. 1.6 is probably a little high in the front for road use but reasonably negligible. The thing is with most cars (and especially with strut suspension) it's often hard to adjust one thing without affecting another... even if you do have adjustable lower arms etc. If you've got a double-wishbone system however it's MUCH easier as usually adjusting one thing will only have a negligible effect on others so you can get castor set, then ride height, then static camber then bump steer, knowing that each one you change will not affect anything you've already set up. As for adjustable top-hats, some of them give combination camber/castor adjustment and some of them give pure camber adjustment, depending on the design. Depending on what sort of system you have, castor is usually pretty insignificant, certainly over the range of adjustment that you typically have available. If you're investing in an adjustable top hat you want something that's nice and sturdy and can be easily incrementally adjusted. If it's a McPherson strut system it's also much better if you can get one with a rose-joint/ball bearing pivot as this will always be more geometrically reliable than a bushed type joint.

this is more of a reply to azumith, but carries on from what esprit just said

there is a good reason why you cant find camber plates for front end

(look at the suspension arm setup)

Umm not following?

So the Tein, HKS, etc etc coil-overs that feature camber adjustment by way of sliding top plates for the R32 Skyline won't fit my R32 Skyline?

Edit - Front only of course.

Esprit wrote: I used to remember my friend's old Ford Laser TX3i that had adjustible suspension on the dash... was the coolest thing out... had "Normal" (soft all round) "Sport" (hard all round) and "Cruise" (Hard in the front, soft in the rear). Buggered if we could tell any difference between them but damn that was just ice cool!

heh, my brother's TX3 still has a working set of those, although a few of the bushes in the front are starting to flog out.

Mazda seemed to have a lot of fun pissing around with adjustable suspension crap in the '80s - BFMRs had height adjustable airbag suspension (two settings) and the old HB Cosmos had A.S.A similar to the TX3s except with an "auto" cruise mode above 80km/h.

AzumitH wrote: Umm not following? So the Tein, HKS, etc etc coil-overs that feature camber adjustment by way of sliding top plates for the R32 Skyline won't fit my R32 Skyline? Edit - Front only of course.

being I've got a 32 and 34 the way to sort the camber on them is to get adjustable top arms for the front. not camber plates. the coil-over/shock does not determine the angle of the hub, therefore camber plates won't do anything.

darkness_nz wrote: being I've got a 32 and 34 the way to sort the camber on them is to get adjustable top arms for the front. not camber plates. the coil-over/shock does not determine the angle of the hub, therefore camber plates won't do anything.

You would also need to monitor driveshaft CV angles to make sure you do not flog out the CV's

and being ive worked on both jimmys r32 and r34 and own an r32 myself i too can assure you AzumitH that the adjustable camber plates do not even come on suspension designed for R32 or R34 the only way to adjust camber on either model is with adjustable upper arms, wether this is done via adjustable bush linkages or even replacement arms this is the only way

the reason for this is because the upper of the hub is held to the chassis by way of a j-arm and top arm rather than the other style (s13 etc) that has the shock bolted to the hub therefore can be adjusted from the top hat of the shock

^ what he said.

(BT)MikeMan wrote: You would also need to monitor driveshaft CV angles to make sure you do not flog out the CV's

we are discussing the fronts, and you only have to worry about that on the gts4/gtr ones, and to be honest even at full deflection on either of those models itd take quite a while to damage a cv under normal driving conditions with a couple of degree's of adjusted camber on a skyline's front end

St4lk3r wrote: the reason for this is because the upper of the hub is held to the chassis by way of a j-arm and top arm rather than the other style (s13 etc) that has the shock bolted to the hub therefore can be adjusted from the top hat of the shock

Yup, essentially the Skyline runs a dual wishbone-style setup whereas the Silvias run with a more standard McPherson Strut. Is there no way to shim the uprights for camber on the Skylines? I'd have thought they were a little more user-friendly in their adjustment, although I'm assuming most people get around this by just buying an adjustable top-arm and being done with it