twenzel

iTrader: (27)

Check out the new GTR rear suspension. The multi-link setup design is almost identical to the Z33 rear suspension.

So many people said that mounting the spring to the top of the spindle was mechanically inferior to mounting it to the lower arm or lower spindle.

Those the followed the threads about all Stance suspension arguments know what I am talking about.

Well guess what, Nissan mounted the spring to the top of the spindle on the GTR. Its not such a bad design anymore is it?

This is the GTR rear subframe:

Motormouth

iTrader: (44)

but it's designed for this. I thought that was always the arguement, that the Z was not, hence it not being optimal to switch it over.

Alberto

iTrader: (14)

+1 I see wires coming out of the shock body, factory adjustability, like EDFC but not as good...

twenzel

iTrader: (27)

I agree with you on the fact that the spindle or upper shock mount was not designed to carry that weight on the Z33/V35 Chassis. But that so far is not a problem on my car.

But the most compelling arguments that were presented on this forum were that the design was geometrically flawed by putting the weight on the upper mount of the spindle vs the lower. This design proves otherwise.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

No it doesn't, because you haven't shown us anything about the design besides one picture.

Even with this picture, have you noticed the damper mount is now perpendicular to the carrier and not parallel? Have you noticed the upper spring perch is different? Have you noticed the upper arm acts around an axis that is different than the Z33?

There is more to this than meets the eye. Mercedes also has a 5 link rear suspension that is similiar to the Z33, but the damper/spring combo is mounted to the top of the hub carrier similiar to this, and there are several differences in the layout of the links to control loading as compared to the Z33. I could just as well post a picture of the Z32 5 link design and say, "see, the damper is mounted at the base of the hub carrier for a reason", but it wouldn't apply any more than this does. Two different chassis, two different suspensions. As an example, comapare SLA on the front of the Z. An SLA is a common design, but it is very different in execution than the SLA used by Honda on the front of their S2000.

Will

Z1 Performance

iTrader: (564)

thank you ^

a multilink is a multilink - only so many ways it can be done. The point in comparing them is not to say that because one multilink does it, anyone can.

Look at the overall geometry of the true coil on a Z, vs the keeping the rear spring separated and it becomes pretty clear why Nissan chose to keep it separate

mthreat

iTrader: (16)

I'd like to hear Kuah @ SPL's opinion on this, he seems to have a good understanding of the Z's suspension. I recall the argument being that the Z33 was designed for its spring to be separate from the damper, not that the separate spring/damper setup is inherently better. (Although I seem to remember some other separate argument about spring/damper setups causing more stress on the damper piston or something).

rkd350z

iTrader: (3)

I don't know about the upper part of Gt-Rs sus, but I'm satisfied with my STANCE!
lower than ever~!

kuah@splparts.com

iTrader: (10)

It all depends on where the shock mounts to on the spindle. On the 350Z, it is mounted at the top of the spindle, making it sensitive to changes in camber angle. On the other hand, if you look at the old 300ZX, the shock mounts to the middle/center of the spindle which minimizes the effect of camber angle on wheel rate. Coilovers are NOT inherently bad, but Nissan *designed* the 350Z/G35 rear suspension geometry for a NON coilover setup.

Dubs13

Sorry for reviving an old thread but the arguments in this article are quite compelling. I'd like to know if these arguments are still considered valid today. In other words, is it still generally accepted that an OEM style setup is the best to go with?