Tweet
Suspension:
It is said that the 33 multi-link suspension was carried over from the 32. However upon looking closer it can be said that they are a very different suspension. A common weakness found in the multi-link set up is the amount of parts. Because there are many arms and bushings sometimes the arms can prevent a full motion. This leads to another common problem which is the stress placed on bushings (indeed the writer had to change his upper link a few times).
To alleviate these issues the engineers utilized an A shape front upper arm instead of the I shape used in the 32. The front upper arm location was also changed to a different angle to take advantage of a more natural smooth motion. This change resulted in an increase of 15% in motion leading to better road contact. Furthermore the bushings were increased in capacity (better material) and achieved a more direct feeling. To put this into numbers the engineers were able to increase the lateral stiffness 90% and camber stiffness of 35% over the 32. The strong understeer tendencies of the bnr32 can be attributed to the weakness in the original multi-link in terms of geometry and stiffness.
The rear suspension was completely redesigned in regards to the suspension frame other than part of the upper arm. The aim was probably to increase the capacity of the whole rear suspension. If you look at the 32 rear layout and the 33 side by side, you should be able to tell they are completely different. The fact that the 33 multi-link set up was carried over to the 34 without major changes speaks of its durability and foresight. If you are lucky enough to ride and compare the 32 and 33, you should be able to feel the difference in the contact with the road (in its limits), improved traction and smooth operation of the suspension. A common side effect on some non-refreshed 32's is the vibration in the steering wheel under hard braking. This should not occur in the 33 as commonly.
Another major change in the 33 rear is the way the differential is mounted. In the 32, this was simply bolted directly on to the rear suspension member in a rigid manner. In the 33, a bushing is placed in between. At a glance, this seems like a "soft" move aimed at luxurising the skyline to reduce noise. However in reality by placing the bushing in between, it is improving the strength and durability of the connection with the suspension member (suspension member bushing) and chassis, while reducing the noise and vibrations. This helped reduce or eliminate the spongy feeling that the 32 has in high speed situations. As evidence of this, cars equiping the earlier multi-link suspension such as the 32, s13, a31, and c33, are known to have weak rear suspension bushes. When this bushing is gone, this leads to a big unnatural drop in the rear end of the vehicle. There was simply too much stress from the differential placed on the suspension member bushing alone.
As further evidence you would be able to tell by differences in "feel" from the 32 to the 33 if you install strengthened arms, bushings and rear member colors (sometimes called pineapples). In the 32, by installing these parts you will now be able to feel the wrath of the vibrations and noise of the differential. In the 33 and 34, if you install these parts you would benefit from the improvements in performance (traction )without suffering the negative impacts (noise vibration and stiffness). The strain on the upper arm on the back too, can be realized. Thus the failing upper arms.
Chassis (body):
This is what made the 33 undesirable for 32 fans. However it can be said that it was a big step towards modernization. From what the writer has heard from others, the 32 chassis strength was calculated with the windows on place. This may be good in case of the thick steel c10 hakosuka, or r30, but, in terms of passive safety (where impact absorbing monocoque bodies are important), the chassis stiffness is just lacking. Though many like the weight of the 32, there was a mounting pressure. When the 32 debuted the bnr32 was 1430kg (vspec 1500kg), but be the end of production this became 1480kg (vspec 1530kg). Leaving the criticism of performance figures aside, this most definitely changed the feeling of the car for the better in terms of stability. Although it did affect the car negatively performance wise, it is said all of the weight was a result of safety related equipment. The idea was to do away with some safety equipment and have a strong body in its place. Nissan decided to use the best technology available at the time to conduct the structural analysis. For example, the pressed doors the 33 sedan uses are stronger than the 32 sedans while being lighter by 8kg. The use of the windows during the analysis was done away with. This allowed for lighter windows to be equipped. What required 70kg in welds and screw/bolts was reduced to 20kg, and the structural rigidity of the sedan was increased 30% over the 32 sedan and 44% in the coupe. The bcnr33 in particular, was able to achieve the optimum rigidity of the monocoque body, without the sidebar & crossbar in the front and bulkhead reinforcement plate & suspension member crossbar (these were added on the monocoque body after for support). It can be said that many aspects of this design were incorporated into the bnr34 (particularly the later version bcnr33, including the autech 4 door gt-r), from what was added to the monococue body on the bcnr33 for support.
The 33 is accused of being heavy and big (which it is...), but as an advantage, it becomes easier to place things upon the body more efficiently. It was time for the new generation to arrive and the engineers at nissan were thinking ahead. The 105mm increase in wheel base was often criticized, but the wheel base of the 32 had not changed since the 1978 introduction of the c210. As evident, other than overhang, the 32 is no different than the r31. In regards to the sedan there was more criticisms. The difficulty of getting into the rear seat of the sedan (the most difficult Japanese sedan to get into the rear seat?), and the tiny trunk space (smaller than some sports cars) to name a few. These unpopular changes were a result of the structural analysis, and not the result of laziness or cost cutting. This can be revealed once looking into the high traction layout of the car.
Though the increase in body size and weight were unpopular, the improvements include: front overhang was reduced (& weight), head lining was lightened, rear overhang was reduced (& weight), battery was placed in the trunk, the gas tank was brought in front of the rear tires (reducing the lose in grip in the rear tires from a near empty gas tank), lowering of center of gravity, and the weight balance between the front and back tires were optimized. This was in addition to the improved suspension geometry and structural rigidity.
The larger body allowed these changes to happen, though interior comfort may have been sacrificed, it is clear nissan stayed true to the heritage of the skyline with the 33.
Thanks to Mr. Yamada!
It is said that the 33 multi-link suspension was carried over from the 32. However upon looking closer it can be said that they are a very different suspension. A common weakness found in the multi-link set up is the amount of parts. Because there are many arms and bushings sometimes the arms can prevent a full motion. This leads to another common problem which is the stress placed on bushings (indeed the writer had to change his upper link a few times).
To alleviate these issues the engineers utilized an A shape front upper arm instead of the I shape used in the 32. The front upper arm location was also changed to a different angle to take advantage of a more natural smooth motion. This change resulted in an increase of 15% in motion leading to better road contact. Furthermore the bushings were increased in capacity (better material) and achieved a more direct feeling. To put this into numbers the engineers were able to increase the lateral stiffness 90% and camber stiffness of 35% over the 32. The strong understeer tendencies of the bnr32 can be attributed to the weakness in the original multi-link in terms of geometry and stiffness.
The rear suspension was completely redesigned in regards to the suspension frame other than part of the upper arm. The aim was probably to increase the capacity of the whole rear suspension. If you look at the 32 rear layout and the 33 side by side, you should be able to tell they are completely different. The fact that the 33 multi-link set up was carried over to the 34 without major changes speaks of its durability and foresight. If you are lucky enough to ride and compare the 32 and 33, you should be able to feel the difference in the contact with the road (in its limits), improved traction and smooth operation of the suspension. A common side effect on some non-refreshed 32's is the vibration in the steering wheel under hard braking. This should not occur in the 33 as commonly.
Another major change in the 33 rear is the way the differential is mounted. In the 32, this was simply bolted directly on to the rear suspension member in a rigid manner. In the 33, a bushing is placed in between. At a glance, this seems like a "soft" move aimed at luxurising the skyline to reduce noise. However in reality by placing the bushing in between, it is improving the strength and durability of the connection with the suspension member (suspension member bushing) and chassis, while reducing the noise and vibrations. This helped reduce or eliminate the spongy feeling that the 32 has in high speed situations. As evidence of this, cars equiping the earlier multi-link suspension such as the 32, s13, a31, and c33, are known to have weak rear suspension bushes. When this bushing is gone, this leads to a big unnatural drop in the rear end of the vehicle. There was simply too much stress from the differential placed on the suspension member bushing alone.
As further evidence you would be able to tell by differences in "feel" from the 32 to the 33 if you install strengthened arms, bushings and rear member colors (sometimes called pineapples). In the 32, by installing these parts you will now be able to feel the wrath of the vibrations and noise of the differential. In the 33 and 34, if you install these parts you would benefit from the improvements in performance (traction )without suffering the negative impacts (noise vibration and stiffness). The strain on the upper arm on the back too, can be realized. Thus the failing upper arms.
Chassis (body):
This is what made the 33 undesirable for 32 fans. However it can be said that it was a big step towards modernization. From what the writer has heard from others, the 32 chassis strength was calculated with the windows on place. This may be good in case of the thick steel c10 hakosuka, or r30, but, in terms of passive safety (where impact absorbing monocoque bodies are important), the chassis stiffness is just lacking. Though many like the weight of the 32, there was a mounting pressure. When the 32 debuted the bnr32 was 1430kg (vspec 1500kg), but be the end of production this became 1480kg (vspec 1530kg). Leaving the criticism of performance figures aside, this most definitely changed the feeling of the car for the better in terms of stability. Although it did affect the car negatively performance wise, it is said all of the weight was a result of safety related equipment. The idea was to do away with some safety equipment and have a strong body in its place. Nissan decided to use the best technology available at the time to conduct the structural analysis. For example, the pressed doors the 33 sedan uses are stronger than the 32 sedans while being lighter by 8kg. The use of the windows during the analysis was done away with. This allowed for lighter windows to be equipped. What required 70kg in welds and screw/bolts was reduced to 20kg, and the structural rigidity of the sedan was increased 30% over the 32 sedan and 44% in the coupe. The bcnr33 in particular, was able to achieve the optimum rigidity of the monocoque body, without the sidebar & crossbar in the front and bulkhead reinforcement plate & suspension member crossbar (these were added on the monocoque body after for support). It can be said that many aspects of this design were incorporated into the bnr34 (particularly the later version bcnr33, including the autech 4 door gt-r), from what was added to the monococue body on the bcnr33 for support.
The 33 is accused of being heavy and big (which it is...), but as an advantage, it becomes easier to place things upon the body more efficiently. It was time for the new generation to arrive and the engineers at nissan were thinking ahead. The 105mm increase in wheel base was often criticized, but the wheel base of the 32 had not changed since the 1978 introduction of the c210. As evident, other than overhang, the 32 is no different than the r31. In regards to the sedan there was more criticisms. The difficulty of getting into the rear seat of the sedan (the most difficult Japanese sedan to get into the rear seat?), and the tiny trunk space (smaller than some sports cars) to name a few. These unpopular changes were a result of the structural analysis, and not the result of laziness or cost cutting. This can be revealed once looking into the high traction layout of the car.
Though the increase in body size and weight were unpopular, the improvements include: front overhang was reduced (& weight), head lining was lightened, rear overhang was reduced (& weight), battery was placed in the trunk, the gas tank was brought in front of the rear tires (reducing the lose in grip in the rear tires from a near empty gas tank), lowering of center of gravity, and the weight balance between the front and back tires were optimized. This was in addition to the improved suspension geometry and structural rigidity.
The larger body allowed these changes to happen, though interior comfort may have been sacrificed, it is clear nissan stayed true to the heritage of the skyline with the 33.
Thanks to Mr. Yamada!
Comment