Ozdat Home Feature Cars Ozdat Classifieds Event Calander Links Trade Link Tech Resource Merchandise Donate Web Mail
It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:33 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:13 am
Posts: 108
Location: Rockhampton, QLD, Aus
for the gains it would Give, 5000 is a pretty reasonable amount i think. And the fact that it would last and last... pays for itself down the road.

Very interesting!

_________________
The Gene Pool Needs More Chlorine.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 3:53 pm
Posts: 52
Location: CRACE, ACT
RJB510 wrote:

There was a write up on here before about doing a rack and pinion conversion, but most of us were less than impressed as the guy didn't put up any pictures and claimed it was for "safety reasons" or something as he was a "qualified engineer" but couldn't back up what he was saying.


Of course others have done it [Rack-and-Pinion conversion], but how well?

Even before I had an opportunity to post photos, I just got lots of criticism: "Ha Ha Ha ... grow some balls, ... and etc. and no photos - then it didn't happen..."

Consider this:

You build an engine and a rod bolt lets go, you end up with a rod through the side of the block ... who is affected? You! It hurts your wallet, but you go buy a new engine.

You build a rack and pinion conversion for your race car and it seizes up as you go through a corner and you crash into a wall. ... who is affected? You! It hurts your wallet, but you go build a new car.

You build a rack and pinion conversion for your road car in your back yard. It is based on selected ideas and potentially incomplete information placed on the Ozdat forum. Your steering seizes up as you go through a corner and you crash into an oncoming car and kill three people. ... well, you get the idea.

_________________
Things work best when it matters the least, and ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:54 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
Same thing can happen whilst using your mobile phone when driving, drink driving, speeding, falling asleep at the wheel, getting a sudden flat tire and getting pushed into incoming traffic.

Mate,
This forum is an information sharing resource.

You said you wouldn't post photos! prior to everyone giving you stick about it. Even if people didn't copy you, we just wanted too see your workmanship and how it fitted up with the motor, clearance, neatness and to admire.

You also refused to detail the parts you used etc.
I was actually very interested in what you had done and I believe I have the necessary skills and knowledge to make a power rack and pinion steering setup on my own car.
Which a qualified engineer would then sign off on for compliance before it was ever used on the road. But to be quite frankly honest, after hearing your replies to it I'm now more inclined to go to the wreckers and find parts that I can play around with too see if I can make something work... how much safer is that do you think!

As you said, it's been done before, therefore others will also find a way.

But your post seemed to serve no purpose other than bragging that you have done something, but then gave no more detail on how you did it, or what parts were used or to advise other willing and capable members to engineer their own systems for their own cars. You assumed it your responsibility should something go wrong if anyone else attempt the same thing and it didn't work.

I admit that is a noble view to take, it is also very arrogant given the circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 1566
I would of happily paid the 5k when doing my build baz.

_________________
1600 Build: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=22694


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 3:53 pm
Posts: 52
Location: CRACE, ACT
Thanks for your response, but right from the very start my post included details of parts, including various part numbers / where to source them, fabrication instructions and detailed measurements. I subsequently chose not to disclose further details, and remove what I had posted in direct response to those who first laid sh*t on me for posting a disclaimer to the effect that I could not be responsible for anybody else's actions. When it comes to steering, safety is critically dependent on good engineering: unless I actually both design and build it, I cannot be responsible.

The critics then insisted that I immediately post what they wanted to see. It's quite bizarre that some hold the misguided belief that a poster is obliged to make information available on demand. Let me make it absolutely clear that as much as anybody might hold that view, there is no obligation on any poster to acquiesce to it. When it has taken considerable intellectual effort to develop a design and accumulate the associated knowledge / information, absolutely nobody has the right to demand it.

I had tried to upload a series drawings, photos and explanatory notes. Some were in .pdf and others .jpg format. The Ozdat website bounced them, indicating that they were either too large or not in a recognisable format. I've since discovered how to successfully upload such artefacts.

It is only out of respect for those genuinely interested who contacted me separately that I have agreed to post this information including lessons from over a hundred hours of engineering development effort, and some fairly tricky fabrication, needed to build a good rack and pinion conversion.

Baz’s comment on this thread acknowledges how much effort would be involved in developing a commercial bolt-up kit, which fits all requirements, engine types and etc. I would strongly agree.

This thread indicates that there is demand for a well-engineered bolt-up Rack-and-Pinion conversion. I think that many parts will have to be fabricated which would make it expensive.

My solution is achievable for less than $500 in parts, but lots and lots of time and effort in fabrication and fitting. Though this is unlikely to suit most, it should reveal some of the challenges: things to consider and some to avoid.

Though I have not tried, this conversion could well work for SR20 and FJ20 and maybe others. However, clearances are tight and both rack and engine position are critical.

It is most unlikely to suit an engine installation where the exhaust is on the right hand side (like Honda S2000): for that, the rack will have to go in front of the cross-member - a different set of issues.

With respect to the original steering mechanism and engine cross-member configuration, see the first photo which shows one of the measurement jigs used to determine where the rack might be positioned in an attempt to replicate the original Ackermann steering. Unlike a rack which must not move, the original drag link swings under control of the Pitman and idler arms, moving side to side and front to back WRT to the body of the car as the steering is turned: it is NOT possible to use a rack to exactly replicate the OEM steering geometry. Also note that a subsequent decision was taken to have the sump at the front which required the crossmember to be reversed: this allowed a 910 sump designed to be compatible with a rack to be used, thereby allowing extra clearance between rack and engine.

I guess that a kit would have to contain something like crossmember with rack, rack rod ends, tie rod ends to suit OEM steering arms(?), ready to bolt up. Note that the chassis rails need to be reinforced, doubler plates welded to the crossmember (the flat bits at the ends of the crossmember) where it bolts up to the chassis rails, crush tubes and extra bolts installed. Steering column installation is less of a challenge, but there are constraints imposed if the original pedal box and pedals are retained. The steering column must be installed so that universal joints do not operate through excessive angles, which demands that the point at which the steering column passes through the fire wall be lower and inboard compared to the original layout. This requires enlarging the hole where the original column goes through the fire wall and welding in a plate which incorporates the mounting for the lower end of the column. The aim here is to have a line between steering wheel and pinion that is is straight as possible. A kit of parts that bolts up (no welding fabrication) would need a short steering column with two intermediate shafts between the column and pinion shaft. This might seem complicated, but offers an opportunity to achieve the most precise steering because it would have the best relationship between input at the steering wheel and rack position.

The alternative to a shortened rack like the manual TRW one from a 910 Bluebird is to go for something like a Mk1 Escort which has 1270mm track just like the 510, or go for a 240Z cross-member and rack. Both mount the rack in front of the crossmember, which is likely to be problematic if your chosen engine has the main part of its sump forward of the crossmember. The 240z track is going to be wide and parts are becoming hard to find. Another issue is that if the rack is in front of the crossmember you will almost certainly need to have compression rods to locate the lower control arms (radius rods that attach to the chassis at the rear rather than at the front), instead of tension rods (otherwise the rack rod ends, radius rods and sway bar will be competing for the same real estate). Having the rack in front of the crossmember can be done, but this involves moving the attachment points for radius rods to the back, figuring out how to avoid conflict between rack rod ends and the sway bar, and having steering arms in front of the strut: See Escort Rack photo. If considering something like an Escort rack, you need to be aware that rack rod ends use UNF(?) threads and there are two different (Imperial size) tapers used on steering arms for Mk1 / Mk2 / RS2000. These are not compatible with the metric taper (taper angle, nominal diameter and length) used in Nissan/Datsun steering arms.

I believe that the better way to go is to have the rack behind the crossmember, if a way can be found to ensure clearance between the lower intermediate shaft and the engine. With the L-series engine this works fine, and may work for others like SR20 or FJ20, but not sure. Again, it helps to have the point at which the column passes through the firewall quite low and inboard compared to the original steering column.

Also there are lots of modern front wheel drive cars that have a track width roughly the same as the P510 and mount the rack behind the engine crossmember. So there is probably a suitable rack out there (with power assist, if you prefer) - BUT lots of things must work together: splines on rack pinion must be compatible with intermediate shaft, threads at each end of rack must have suitable size and pitch, rack rod end length and threads (at both ends), tie rod end thread, tie rod end / steering arm taper, ball joints must be able to cope with angular displacement that can occur during operation, and etc., Extreme Caution is needed when it comes to angular displacement of ball joints, especially tie rod end ball joints: OEM ball joints typically tolerate 28-35 degrees total angular displacement (for racing an M14 rose joint might tolerate 28 degrees whilst a special 'high displacement' rose joint might tolerate more than 50 degrees). It is critically important to measure these angles precisely for your specific steering/suspension set-up and for the full ranges of suspension travel and steering: GET THIS WRONG AND YOUR STEERING COULD BREAK!

If you are looking for a really simple bolt-up solution: I don't think there is one.


Attachments:
File comment: Measuring rack position to determine if it is possible replicate OEM steering geometry.
3Rack-cf-OEMSteering.jpg
3Rack-cf-OEMSteering.jpg [ 1.48 MiB | Viewed 3931 times ]
File comment: Configuration of Escort Rack (viewed from the front of the car). Here rack is in front of engine cross-member. For rotary or S2000 Honda installations, having the rack in front of the cross-member may be the only way.
Escort MK1 RS1600 Rack.jpg
Escort MK1 RS1600 Rack.jpg [ 207.89 KiB | Viewed 4000 times ]
File comment: Rack installed behind 510 crossmember that has been reversed and LCA pivots moved slightly outboard. Alloy plate, solidly bolted to the cross-member, firmly bolts up to the chassis via brackets (not shown) at the OEM steering box and idler arm mounting points. This is for strength and rigidity under conditions of high lateral loading, hence extra safety: it is not designed as a bash plate!
RackXmem.png
RackXmem.png [ 1.16 MiB | Viewed 4077 times ]

_________________
Things work best when it matters the least, and ...


Last edited by AlanDatsomefun on Fri May 15, 2015 10:52 am, edited 57 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 3:53 pm
Posts: 52
Location: CRACE, ACT
If you are prepared to build it yourself, this is what a R-n-P conversion could look like. Photos show checks being done before final paint and install. Most important: Several jigs had to be made and accurate measurements taken to ensure correct steering geometry and precise locating of the rack - it's NOT a matter of stick it in and "she'll do, mate": if this isn't right then you will have bump-steer and other steering geometry issues. Here the collapsible steering column with height adjustable steering wheel has its primary attachment at the firewall, meaning that a plate / mounting bracket has to be welded into the firewall. Hence, this is not a bolt-up conversion which could be offered as a kit. The lower intermediate shaft shown here is a temporary installation. It has a splined joint which can be pulled apart and indexed around (one spline at a time) to find the sweet spot for the relative positioning of the universal joints. If you don't find the sweet spot, the steering response will be irregular, and depending on where the steering wheel is turned you could turn a lot with little response or turn some with some response: this is essential to getting it right. In the end I believe that the effort was worth it. Steering is precise, smooth, steering involves less effort than the old gearbox - even without power steering, and no bump steer. Almost certainly (not tested) much safer in the event of a head on crash than the old "spear you in the chest solid steering column".
I'm guessing that if you had to pay somebody to develop something like this completely from scratch and do all the fabrication work needed, and have it work properly, there would not be much change from $5k ...


Attachments:
File comment: This is the primary point of mounting of the steering column. Not much room between bolts and pedals - but it all clears! There is a neat weather seal that goes between the column and the firewall, but it is not installed in this photo.
Column~Firewall1.jpg
Column~Firewall1.jpg [ 919.66 KiB | Viewed 4063 times ]
File comment: Height adjustment for steering wheel. In a serious crash, the column is designed to collapse and if impacted by the driver, separates from its mounting at the pedal box.
Column~UpperMount1.jpg
Column~UpperMount1.jpg [ 841.67 KiB | Viewed 4063 times ]
File comment: Just enough clearance - sump at front - L series engine. Not tested for others like SR or FJ, but should work.
RackViewedUnder~Front.jpg
RackViewedUnder~Front.jpg [ 1.42 MiB | Viewed 4063 times ]
File comment: Lower intermediate shaft - splined for determining correct phasing of UJs
Lower~Shaft1.jpg
Lower~Shaft1.jpg [ 1.29 MiB | Viewed 4063 times ]
File comment: Jigs used to measure precise location of rack to avoid bump steer.
Jigs~RackExactLocation.jpg
Jigs~RackExactLocation.jpg [ 1.16 MiB | Viewed 4063 times ]
File comment: Welded-in attachment at firewall with weather seal (not shown) and splined lower intermediate shaft.
Lower~Shaft2.jpg
Lower~Shaft2.jpg [ 1.12 MiB | Viewed 4063 times ]

_________________
Things work best when it matters the least, and ...


Last edited by AlanDatsomefun on Thu Mar 12, 2015 2:01 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:40 pm
Posts: 69
Location: Melbourne, Vic
This is amazing work and a real treat to look at - sincerely, thank you for sharing these pictures. I said it before when you outlined your detailed post in 2014 that you have an excellent engineering approach to this conversion; just reading your notes and reviewing your CAD / geometry calculations prove that - certainly more than just a cut and shut conversion with sighting in by eye. It would be great to see the rest of your 1600 - the other work must be as remarkable as well.

In the late '80's / early 90's I did a similar conversion, along with one or two others I have come across, using a Bluebird Series II rack & pinion gear and the SII crossmember. Had to modify the crossmember to put it into the 1600 and I used the original 510 steering box and idler arm chassis locations to mount anti-roll bars. I did not shorten the rack at all and, of course, it necessitated widening the track by ~30 mm per side to keep the geometry similar to donor car with the consequence that I needed to run NISMO style flared front guards to accommodate the wider track (not something I would do again). I still have the car and will endeavour to get some pictures listed but it is not comparable to your conversion which is definitely an elegant solution!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 3:53 pm
Posts: 52
Location: CRACE, ACT
Thanks for the supportive comments. In the case of this conversion, the resulting track is not as wide as a straight transplant of the 910 crossmember and lower control arms, but it is still more than the original 1270mm by some 40mm with the 6.5"x16 +40 offset wheels and standard length 510 LCAs I am using. Overall, the wheels just fit within the front guards. The rack had to be shortened by 25mm (no change in number of teeth, but 25mm removed from the passenger side end of the rack shaft). Caution: If a rack is to be shortened this can only be done at the passenger's side end (because it can be done here without getting too close to the gear teeth), and it must be done following the way it was done by the original manufacturer. This will involve precision drilling from the end of the rack and cutting a new internal thread (some older racks had external threads and rack rod ends with internal threads: recommend avoid this type and go for a rack with an internal thread for the rack rod end) . Cutting a bit off the rack, drilling from the end and cutting a new thread is precision work, which must be done in a lathe by a competent machinist: NEVER ATTEMPT TO DO THIS BY HAND.
The tricky bit is that the distance between LCA pivot points (even after these have been moved outboard by 17.5mm each side, and up a little by an amount which depends on strut length, suspension travel, ride height, and etc.) is still 40mm less than the effective length of the shortened rack: the rack is still a bit too long for ideal steering geometry. Despite this, bump steer can be overcome in large part (practically eliminated) by precisely locating the rack, in terms of height relative to LCA pivot points and distance back from the arc through which the LCA travels, as constrained by the tension rod, and the bottom end of the McPherson strut. To avoid bump steer the basic strategy is to have the rack rod end ball joint and LCA pivot points in alignment, so that the [centre of the] LCA ball joint and the [centre of the ball joint at the] tie rod end follow concentric arcs (that is, because their centres align), noting that the condition described only exists and can be measured when the wheels are pointed straight ahead. This explanation is somewhat simplistic because as the car is driven, the steering turned and bumps are hit, camber (and less so caster) change as do relative positions of the LCAs and tie rods. Overall, (worst case as measured - suspension on one side at upper limit of effective travel, and other side at lower limit of effective travel), bump steer is still less than two degrees. The car would have to be pushed extremely hard for this to occur, but the bump steer angles are still small. Under the conditions described, as a driver you would be more concerned about slip angles between road and tyre.
I need to add a caveat: the diagram shows the results of measurements with road wheels in the straight ahead position, and these were static. I cannot claim to have taken dynamic measurements with the road wheels turned whilst hitting a large pot hole, and at speed (where slip angles are significant). These are the conditions under which bump steer would occur.


Attachments:
File comment: Diagram shows the measured amount of difference between trajectory of LCA (at the lower ball joint) and tie rod end (at the ball joint) as suspension moves up and down = plus/minus 0.7mm (less than plus/minus one degree overall for full travel of suspension, accounting for both LH and RH sides)
Geom.png
Geom.png [ 202.32 KiB | Viewed 4053 times ]

_________________
Things work best when it matters the least, and ...


Last edited by AlanDatsomefun on Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:25 am, edited 10 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:03 pm 
Offline
Donating Member
User avatar
Donating Member

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:11 pm
Posts: 2151
Location: South Adelaide
Awesome thread. Am enjoying reading this. Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:53 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:28 pm
Posts: 5338
Location: Melbourne, Australia
AlanDatsomefun, glad you shared some detail on how you did it. I think most people would understand it's a fair bit of thought/engineering and fabrication that goes into something like this. I agree on your comments of liability. As an engineer we are responsible for things we design, and liable if it doesn't work. Fortunately in this instance, a fair bit of work would have to go into selection/fabrication and testing for even the average punter at home to complete something like this on their own.
This is one of the good things about OzDat. There is a lot of knowledge on this site that people have shared with.
Regardless, interesting topic and thanks for sharing.

_________________
1972 Datsun 1600, S14 SR20DET Engineered (190-210kw @ 15-16psi.)
http://www.ozdat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6579
M35 Axis Autech


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:46 pm
Posts: 12
Baz wrote:
We now find that sourcing 200B front ends for our current conversion kit has become so difficult that we are considering ceasing production.


Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 3:53 pm
Posts: 52
Location: CRACE, ACT
Unfortunately, its only a matter of time before there will be no option but to completely replace the steering. I am convinced that the only way to do this is to have a custom bolt-in sub-frame kit with everything, which I believe originally is Baz’s idea. My design approach, a variation, would involve a sub-frame with integrated cross-member; rack attached directly to the cross-member; boxed in mounts for tension rods; and sway bar mounts. Items which complete the kit would include: lower control arms, steering arms, sway bar, tensions rods, engine mounts for a variety of engine types, steering column, firewall bearing/mount, intermediate shaft(s), bolts, crush tubes, and etc., and hydraulic power steering pump with hoses and such.

Optional fitting an EPAS (electrical power assisted steering) column – Barina (Vauxhaul Corsa), Toyota Prius, or similar, is workable but requires the pedal box to be modified and extra mountings provided to carry the torque produced by the servo motor and necessarily transmitted through the steering column. I have already prepared a pedal box in anticipation of upgrading to a Barina / Corsa EPAS steering column: so, I know this is workable.

A variation on the arrangement for mounting the steering column would require a custom bracket and a custom, floor mounted clutch and brake pedal arrangement: on the down side - this takes up much of the available foot well space.

An EPAS rack (as in Mercedes A and B class cars, and others?) would simplify the steering column mounting issue, but it is unlikely that this is workable because in a Datsun 1600 the rack would have to be fitted beneath the engine and I doubt there would be sufficient room to accommodate the servo motor. A bigger issue would be that the servo, and perhaps the ECU would be exposed to dirt and moisture – NOT good. Mercedes, for example, locate their EPAS rack (with integral ECU and servo) quite high up in the engine bay where it is well away from dirt and water: unfortunately, not possible in a Datsun. Further, any EPAS installation would require digital signals for vehicle speed and that the engine is running (or an interface/ module which simulates the electrical signals carried by the CAN bus, found in modern cars), and +12v 50A power.

To install the custom sub-frame would be a matter of cutting off the OEM mountings for the tension rods and attaching to, say, original steering box and idler arm attachment points at the rear and crush tubes with bolts installed at the sides (through the chassis rails) and at front not far behind the radiator support panel. The whole sub-frame assembly would have to be carefully located with respect to centreline of the car and the strut towers. The custom sub-frame approach would have the clear advantage that once correctly installed (and there is no reason why this could not be achieved every time), the ideal or close to ideal steering geometry would be exactly replicated - no mistakes.

To avoid the possibility that somebody might make well intentioned but inappropriate changes that cause bump steer, shifts the roll centre, or invokes understeer /(scary) oversteer, the kit could be well designed so nobody would ever need to modify it.

Tuning of the suspension would still be possible though spring/shock choice, adjusting sway bar stiffness, and strut top position, producing desired camber, caster, stiffness and damping – as enthusiasts have always done.

Personally, I would NOT make LCAs or tension rods adjustable because there is very likely to be some extreme combination of settings that would cause steering geometry problems. Rather, I would aim to accommodate differences arising between chassis (and that chassis rails may be slightly bent, or were never perfect) by providing some adjustment in the positioning of the whole sub-frame. The aim would be to precisely locate the sub-frame and, hence, the cross-member with respect to the centreline of the vehicle and tops of the strut towers, noting that the position of the tension rod pivots would have been precisely set with respect to the cross-member at the time the sub-frame was fabricated.

_________________
Things work best when it matters the least, and ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2015 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 1920
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
I was reading on 510realm the other day about a build where the guy had planned on using a complete Toyota AE86 front crossmember with rack and steering setup, not sure what happened but he left that and then redesigned the rear trailing arms with DOM tubing and 5stud hubs.

He had comparison photos between the stock Datsun gear and the AE86 stuff, and it all looked very interchangeable.

If I was going to retrofit a steering rack, something like this way would be how I would approach it, already designed by a manufacturer and if you don't change anything apart from adding coilovers/strut height change and can maintain a similar control arm angle to stock, then I feel its an easy way to go about it.

Factoring in what changes it makes to roll centre F/R etc would be something else to consider as well.

_________________
http://www.healingchambers.com.au


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:54 pm
Posts: 1748
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Got a link, Stoney? A mate of mine runs an AE86 front end in his KE25 rolla, I think it's a common upgrade for those guys, but it does increase the track a fair bit.

_________________
build-threads.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:34 pm
Posts: 1920
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
You'll like his build too Anth, was about 60 pages IIRC, one minute

http://www.the510realm.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=420

A few pages earlier he describes in detail the AE86 setup

_________________
http://www.healingchambers.com.au


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group