saliya

Drop it. It's hard to press with the same force every time; and pushing that bit too hard will result in a dent. Whether or not it dents you will end up with finger marks; whether they are noticeable depends on how clean it was to begin with. Figure out the minimum height required to drop and securely latch your bonnet by starting at a 5cm drop and increasing by a few cm each time till it latches. Gravity doesn't change by much no matter where you are on earth; so once you figure the minimum height out it should not change. Lighter bonnets require more height Regards, Saliya

Hey, The gauge may well be crap and I'd definitely be checking it against something that was known-good because the change-back-to-stock fixes the problem. Use the gauge while there is no problem ... if it's still reading 65psi, it's probably broken. If I had to guess at a problem based only on the information in the OP I'd say recheck the latencies and correction factors. BUT, my point was that using an adjustable FPR to adjust fuel pressure for testing seems fair enough to me. I don't believe that they're inherently evil Regards, Saliya

If the duck test were applied to this situation the conclusion would be they don't stock any parts at all. Regards, Saliya

My reading of the original post is that the adjustable FPR is going to be used to combat too-high fuel pressures that exist on a system with a stock regulator: that is, the OP thinks the original regulator may be broken... Regards, Saliya

The way I read it (ok, only one side of the story but no rebuttals from anyone) is that it's not politics - it's just money. Funny to think of 'your eyes' being bought and sold like that; but it happens. Regards, Saliya

I did mine like this: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...st&id=63577 The cat has no flanges; I just cut into it till it was the diameter I wanted... Regards, Saliya

Personally, I find this really strange. Surely there's enough variance in fuel quality globally and enough room in the ECU for maps to suit <insert crap fuel here> as well as the nitro the 'ring time was run on. Yes, I'm joking about the nitro (probably:)) (applies for patent on octane-detecting fuel sender) Regards, Saliya

Don't those things have launch control and fully-automatic gear selection? (that is, the driver's job is to press the loud pedal and steer between the lines?) I'd have expected all of them to reel off basically the same time/trap in stock form... Regards, Saliya

Here's roughly what I did: * Get a list from the RTA's website about the authorised Signatories (those are engineers that can "sign off" on your car). * Talk to those engineers closest to me regarding the modifications I planned to make, and find one that was willing to approve "in theory" all my proposed mods. Make sure you tell them _everything_ you plan to do. * Make the modifications, ensuring that I stuck to the plan. Note that now the vehicle is unroadworthy so you should plan not to drive it. * Have the engineer inspect the vehicle, and prepare a report - takes about 2-3 days. If anything needs rectifying before the report is prepared, do it. * Take the report to the RTA, and file it with them (they will keep the original). Keep a copy (has to be also signed/stamped by the engineer) in the glove box. * Drive my modified car around, legally. The NSW EPA has nothing to do with this process. The EPA was "called into existence" by the PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ADMINISTRATION ACT 1991: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con.../poteaa1991485/ and administers the PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS ACT 1997 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con.../poteoa1997455/ as well as PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS (CLEAN AIR) REGULATION 2002 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...poteoar2002601/ amongst other things (full-ish list at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/legal/envacts.htm ). We're basically concerned with s154-166 of the 1997 Act and s7-19 of the 2002 Regulation - those sections set out the EPA powers with reference to motor vehicles specially; although I guess the EPA's power to issue PEPs may also be of interest. Basically, they can issue a notice for repair if a vehicle has anti-pollution gear removed (e.g. cat convertor, muffler, charcoal canister) or if it is emitting (or suspected to be emitting) excessive air impurities (the Act has no hard definition for exact quantities, but relates "excessive" back to the "class of vehicle" - most likely referring to ADR 79); or if the vehicle has been modified such that it can take leaded petrol when it's not supposed to. The important bit is that in NSW, these Acts do not mention specific modifications to vehicles (e.g. no pod filters); only compliance or non-compliance with the emissions requirements. Regards, Saliya

The EPA guy is wrong. The rule is not "must do what EPA says"; the rule is "must be compliant with ADRs". Compliance with the relevant ADRs is what an engineer determines when they assess your car for any non-owner-approvable modification. In this situation, the engineer is the expert. Not the police, not the EPA, and not some clown on a forum (me!) So on to "noise" - basically, if a car's older than Jan 2005 ADR 28 is applicable; if it's newer, then ADR 83 applies. ADR 83 is tighter on emissions and compliance with ADR 83 means automatic compliance with ADR 28. There's some argument that a pod will also change exhaust emissions levels (ADR 79) but we'll leave that alone for the moment. The EPA guy's argument is that a pod WILL increase noise; and so be non-compliant - but "will" is a very strong word. The key thing to remember here is that the engineer is not measuring for the presence or lack of a pod; they are measuring for excessive noise levels as determined by the relevant ADR. Yes, any police officer can issue any defect they like for non-compliance; engineering papers can not protect you from that. What the engineering papers do is say that in the opinion of the registered Signatory, the car is ADR-compliant as of the date on the papers. What the defect notice does is say that in the opinion of the inspecting officer, the car is not compliant (they will list reasons). If you have the papers, and the car is unchanged since the date of the papers, the police will most likely leave things alone even if they think that something is out of order. The question is "who has the greater authority to determine compliance" and the ranking order is "engineer, EPA test station/officer, police officer, you". If you have papers, you hold the Aces; if you don't, you have Jacks You will still have to pass what I call the d1ckhead test (are you a d1ckhead or not?); but that's applicable whether your car is modified or stock. Do not use your engineering papers to attempt to bypass the test because they have little to no bearing on it - and the higher your d1ckhead ranking, the higher the chance that an officer will try to find something to ruin your day. You can access all the ADRs at http://www.ditrdlg.gov.au/roads/motor/design/adr_online.aspx Regards, Saliya

A workshop won't be able to pass it unless they are an Engineering Signatory (see RTA site for a list). I went through this when I had mine engineered. Some engineers just won't pass pods at all, probably because administering a drive-by noise test is harder than looking over the car then collecting $500. Who'd have thought? Pods can certainly be engineered (mine is). They need to be enclosed; and they need to not change the emissions of the vehicle to beyond the legal limits. Unless there's something wrong with your filter the tailpipe emissions should not change; but you will find that they are noisier (this is what most people get knocked back on). Basically, you need to be able to pass a drive-by noise test. Keep ringing around the engineers on the RTA list till you find one that will tell you how to pass the test; then do what they say and get your car certified... you will definitely find more than one. Regards, Saliya

Mine's like your bottom pic if that's any help. No kit; home-brew T04Z install. Been running for about 1.5 years as-is; no problems. Regards, Saliya

The filter is a restriction; by doubling the filtration surface area and running the same airflow you'd be halving the restriction all things being equal. If the filter posed no restriction at all, then doubling its area would make no difference - but it does. So putting dual pods on _would_ make a difference to flow; but how much depends on how restrictive the initial situation is. How much of a restriction is "just one"? That depends on how much airflow you're running. If you're running stock boost you're probably not coming anywhere near the flow limits of just one filter so adding one is probably of minimal benefit. If you _did_ want to increase the filtration area, probably the easiest thing to do is use a bigger filter. I use a 6" diam and about 10" high K&N filter; there are all sizes in between (and no doubt, bigger ones) available... Regards, Saliya

If you want someone else to monitor it for you, or monitoring's required for insurance, I've used NRMA carcom for the past 4 years; I have no website link but they're mentioned on this NRMA insurance page: http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/motor/car-...g-devices.shtml It works over GSM so everywhere a mobile works rather than only working in the city. The gadget itself they're selling for about $1.9k, monitoring is about $350 annually; they do everything by SMS (voice comms to people in-car, too). One of the funniest things I saw was a mate's wife hopped in the car, set off the silent alarm, a few seconds later: "This is blahblah from NRMA carcom, we have received an unauthorised entry alert from this vehicle, identify yourself please" [wife] "..." [more forcefully] "I repeat, this is NRMA carcom, we have an unauthorised entry alert on this vehicle, identify yourself please" [wife, to my mate] "Um, I think the car's talking to me" [deadpan] "Yes. I am" [hurriedly exits the car] They're pretty good at doing what they do; about the only gripe I have is that there's no automatic periodic checkin with the base station (like an "I'm OK" SMS) so if the unit fails they won't know. The unit in my old WRX failed and we didn't know for 3 weeks; now we test them every week There are gadgets that you can get to do it yourself for a couple of hundred bucks as Duncan mentioned... but I don't know whether they're standards-compliant and/or approved by insurers. I'd check with your insurer - you don't want to void your insurance by fitting a security device Regards, Saliya

By feel, with a stubby spanner, from underneath... If you don't own them already, a set of stubby ratchet spanners is invaluable when working on a GTR... Regards, Saliya

Hey, Hate to interrupt a holidaying person, but this is an interesting situation that I'm sure confronts many modified vehicle owners. Hope you can find time to look it up or point me in the general direction because I just got off the phone with a Just Cars "Customer Relations" representative, who said during the course of our conversation: "For example, if you have a blow-off valve fitted, and you tell us about it, we will tell you that you are not covered (because it is illegal/unroadworthy). And if you do not tell us about it, you are not covered (because it is illegal/unroadworthy)." Just to make sure I understand, you're saying that some legislation somewhere entitles an owner to: a) makes an illegal modification and b) tell their insurance company about that modification without affecting their coverage? Provided the modification did not contribute to the claim? And that the insurer cannot do what Just Cars said above (that is, their representative is spreading misinformation)? Regards, Saliya

Hey, As both you and Beer Baron have mentioned, most insurers general "must be roadworthy" clauses also have a "contributed to the claim" rider, but that's not what I was referring to. From my Shannons insurance product disclosure: "We will not cover any modification that is: • not legal; • not approved by the transport department in your state" From Justcars, via phone: "any legal modifications" Those are just two insurers of modified vehicles; I'm sure there are more. The insurance company does not need to assess the individual modification to decide on legality - if the modification does not fall into an owner-approvable modification class, and the modification has not been approved by a signatory; then it's illegal, and they can potentially deny your claim. There's also no "contributed to the claim" rider. If there's legislation that these insurers are trying to contract their way out of, perhaps you can point me to it? Are you talking about: INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 54 ? If so, I'm not sure how it applies given they've specifically stated "no illegal modifications"... Regards, Saliya

Actually, you'll probably find that if there are any illegal modifications they _can_ just wash their hands of the whole claim, regardless of whether the mod actually caused the claim or not. Insurance companies don't want to pay you, they want to keep your money That being said, Shannon's make a big deal about being willing to insure modified cars; so if they regularly did this chances are you'd have heard about it (many people's modifications are _not_ engineered; meaning that many claims on modded vehicles would technically be claims on illegal/unroadworthy vehicles). Just be honest with them about what you have, and ask them explicitly whether they require you to get the car engineered with those modifications (make sure you get a yes/no answer, and get it in writing if they say the car does _not_ need engineering). Personally, when I had my old WRX with Shannons I had a Unichip fitted, did not have it engineered and just had the modification listed on the policy. They did not require me to get a certificate. Had cause to make a claim once (hail damage); they paid without a fuss despite the potentially unroadworthy modification. On the other hand, I have all my modifications on the GTR on the relevant engineer's certificate, and it's insured as such... Regards, Saliya

You can sort of see my exhaust here: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...st&id=61395 http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...st&id=90525 The gate outlet is 2"; say about 1/4 of the total area of the exhaust. Fortunately we are going to have a dyno in town shortly; when this happens I'm going to measure the car with various mufflers - sounds like with/without gate is going to be required, too... Regards, Saliya

Definitely. The gas going out the gate doesn't go through the exhaust - more "space" for the gas spinning the turbo (basically, any time the gate is open there is less backpressure than there would be with a plumb-back). Also, the bled gas is only pushing against atmospheric pressure, not what's already in the exhaust (basically, a given gate size can bleed more gas; or same gas at lower duty cycle; or smaller gate can handle same bleed requirement to maintain boost). won't spool quicker (the gate has no effect till it's opened). Might hold boost better where the gate is too small - a plumbed-back gate will be able to bleed off less gas than the same size gate opened to atmosphere. Better to get the right-size gate. Regards, Saliya

Your car. You're paying. Choose what you want. There will be workcover/insurance etc. problems with going into the workshop area; so "with" might mean "close but not quite with". Don't get upset with a workshop that says 'this particular area's off limits'. For example, you should never be allowed near/under a hoist. But there's no reason you shouldn't be able to watch your car being tuned from some non-workshop-area vantage point if that's important to you. If you want this; but the tuner's not up for it - find another tuner. They're there to do what _you_ want, not the other way around. Regards, Saliya

If by 'alloy' you mean non-steel, read no further as this post won't help you You probably want something like this: http://www.mandrelbendingsolutions.com/servlet/Detail?no=436 Any exhaust shop should be able to get you one easily in mild or stainless steel in a reasonable variety of wall thicknesses. You probably don't want it as thick as the one above given that it's for the inlet side... Just ask for a 4" right-angle mandrel bend in the wall thickness of your choice Regards, Saliya

Hey, It's an interesting phenomenon, that's for sure... There is definitely a measurable difference and it's easily-repeatable on my car. Unless my car's a weird one, anybody should be able to repeat it on their RB26? Get a wideband, start the car, take some readings, change the correction factor, observe the results. Maybe the idea that equal opening times == equal fuel delivery isn't always correct? If I had to guess I'd say the air pressure pushing back against the fuel is slightly-different depending on valve position (i.e. slightly lower when it's open and the cylinder is filling, slightly higher when it's closed). That could mean that more or less fuel would be delivered in a given pulse width depending on valve position. That is, firing at a closed valve delivers less fuel than firing for the same amount of time at a filling cylinder. That's just a guess to explain my observations, though Maybe the underpants gnomes are stealing some fuel ??? Regards, Saliya

Hey, With a PFC you can apply different compensations, that might be what they mean. So different lag times can be accounted for. with my car, 700cc sards, going from 0ms compensation to 0.18ms compensation made it slightly richer at all RPMS I've measured at (below boost threshold, I haven't measured at or above without the correction). I'm guessing this is related to a bit of black magic - valve position will be affecting gas volume and velocity, and the fuel pulse's position in relation to _that_ is affecting the mixtures. Definitely a small but observable effect (I removed the correction and retested ) I guess this means that the PFC has fully-sequential injector control? Otherwise, why would it have the space for correction and why would correction make a difference? Regards, Saliya

Hey, Got the O-rings from a mate at Pirtek; he just looked at the new injector and the hole it was going into and sized them to suit. The new ring is a little thinner than the stocker - it has the same OD but a slightly bigger ID. No idea about part # unfortunately. I would _definitely_ get a few spare o-rings - it doesn't take too much to slice a tiny bit off one and then you need to throw it out. I pulled one of the injectors back out and while replacing it gave it a little too much wellie - sliced a sliver off it. As a result, I found out that you _can_ use an old o-ring (well, there are no leaks so far @ 60psi or so). I had to use lube and heat the rail with a hairdryer to get it back in, though... Regards, Saliya