joshuaho96

The thing I'm hoping to collect data on some day is whether the HKS GT3-SS turbos are actually capable of doing this, secondary to that is whether it's even remotely in the same ballpark as a comparable power single for response:

Compression doesn't just disappear. One cylinder getting low relative to others is a really, really bad sign. If it has decreased then the most likely explanation is bad ECU settings or something else have damaged the engine. Also the absolute number for compression is heavily affected by things like battery health/state of charge, whether you actually WOT properly while cranking, etc. You don't just "get compression back", you have to fix whatever is leaking compression.

To me the interesting test would be something like EFR7064 single vs whatever flavor of the day bolt-on twin turbo with comparable power output, assuming you added whatever you needed to try and fix some of the more blatant issues like the really awful twin turbo merge pipe, etc. I have a feeling it would be the EFR7064 but how far off with the stock-ish twins be?

You can have scavenge pumps with a wet sump, there are a number of production cars that have a wet sump with a scavenge pump. As for where you put the scavenge pump I would imagine you would want to pump oil primarily, so it would end up being somewhere like the turbo drains or an engine block drain somehow. The "head drain" is really more breather than oil drain, although the distinction gets a bit wibbly wobbly in cases where oil is getting stuck in the head due to excess crankcase pressure.

It means check the mechanical timing of the cams relative to the crank. The belt and the engine itself will have alignment marks so you can verify this:

Log AFRs, get a timing light and test your base timing, pull the timing cover and look at whether all the timing marks line up. One of those things will probably tell you what's wrong with the car.

Input shaft bearing if the whining follows engine RPM and it's coming from the transmission.

Why bother with forging the motor? If you're going to cut power down to get acceptable response around town you're probably well within the limits of the stock internals. At that point you want to control your piston to wall clearance to be as tight as OEM to control blowby, etc. That's the part that nobody really mentions, if you can barely get your engine oil up to 80C most of the time a forged piston with the usual forged piston clearances is going to probably be knocking around like a hotdog down a hallway. As others have said I would probably focus more on choosing a twin scroll turbo and all that fun stuff instead of worrying about the engine internals. A modern small single with a good twin scroll exhaust manifold designed to be a near direct fit for OEM intake bits is probably the way to go IMO, I'm a big fan on constraining your design problem to the smallest reasonable space to reduce the amount of things that could go wrong.

You might be able to find those coils for cheaper by searching for Hitachi IGC0079, in the US RockAuto sells those coilpacks for 55 USD/73 AUD each. Not sure how to make sure you're getting a genuine coil though, there are counterfeits everywhere for these parts.

Also possible that the valve covers were not sealed properly, any leak there is a vacuum leak as the PCV system is post-MAF.

All of the ducting is really the important part in an oil cooler. Really sucks to hear about the issues with the brakes. I've been wondering what I should do for my brakes as well, not sure what to do there. I've stayed with stock until I can decide. I figure there will always be options in that regard.

The full japanese R34 service manual has these diagrams, you can also look at Nicoclub for US market Nissans, a 2003 350Z has the same Brembo brakes for the most part, I believe the difference is maybe thinner brake pads and a different rotor to rotor hat offset but don't take it as gospel: https://www.nicoclub.com/nissan-service-manuals

The FSM doesn't have any torque spec, presumably because you aren't supposed to split the caliper in normal use. I don't think anyone really knows what the factory spec is or really anything about those calipers. I've seen people claim 65 N-m, it's all over the map really.

R34 factory service manual or the 350Z factory service manual contains all the torque specs for the caliper. Front caliper mounting bolts are 110 ft-lbs, rear caliper to the upright is a much wider range but they say to target about 40-50 ft-lbs. It's ballpark because you can't get a socket on the back, torque adapters exist but it's going to be an interesting problem to fit an adapter + torque wrench in there. Personally I just tapped the rear bolt with a dead blow lightly until it seemed like it was tight, but not stretching the bolt. I'm a weakling so it's pretty hard for me to stretch/break bolts unless the torque spec is in the sub 3 kg-m region. I could barely even get the front caliper bolts to 100 ft-lbs before I called it a day.

What is even the point of the logo? IMO the Autech/unlabeled 300 kph cluster that was used in the Nurburgring test cars is the way to go IMO. Personally I'm probably just going to take my cluster and change the resistor calibration on the speedo to read 180 mph instead of kph if I end up not memorizing all the kph/mph conversions over time.

Can't imagine you'd have a problem with capping the hydraulic output line on the actuator block for the A-LSD as long as the solenoid isn't trying to actuate and send a bunch of pressure through the line to test just how leak-proof the threads on your blanking cap really is. I get the impression that the pump is a common pressure source for both the diff and the transfercase so I presume the solenoid is what controls how much pressure the diff/transfer actually sees.

You have to make sure to emphasize old Nismo logo to get that 2500, otherwise nobody cares it seems.

If it helps here's a wiring diagram, it is from an R33 but I'm pretty sure this would be conserved across those two generations, no real reason to change things dramatically: There is some kind of PCB track system that prevents the motor from being powered in one direction once fully extended/folded but it can be powered the other way around. The top two motors are for actual mirror adjustment, the bottom 4/5 pin are for storage. You apply 12V to 4 and 0V to 5 to get the mirror to go one direction, then 12V to 5 and 0V to pin 4 to go the other way. I would try doing this with a bench power supply, preferably with overcurrent protection and all that fun stuff to reduce the risk of blowing something up. If it folds and opens up properly see if the harness is signaling voltage properly. If it sees voltage and the mirror seems to be fine then I dunno life gets complicated at that point, you have some issue pulling voltage too low to operate in one direction while it works fine in another. Maybe the mirror motor has a bad bushing causing the windings to contact the case in one direction but not the other? Something strange like that.

With a standard brushed fuel pump there's no controller needed, once you transition to a standalone you just do what @Dose Pipe Sutututu described, a relay controlling the connection to ground driven by a digital output on the Link. This approach unlike the stock dropping resistor doesn't run into issues with high flow fuel pumps getting unhappy when driven at low voltages.

Right, the actual answer is don't bother with the stock ECU and just use a standalone to drive the PWM. Brushless fuel pumps mandate and come with a motor controller.

I don't think the fuel heating issue is quite as big a problem as it is on stuff like the R35 because the transmission is up front, in the R35s it is actually bad enough with some fuel pumps to cause fuel to boil at the pump inlet which almost immediately causes cavitation and fuel pressure loss. So in that situation you absolutely want to avoid running higher duty cycle than necessary. Deatschwerks makes a fuel pump controller that takes a PWM signal, all I'd need to get it to run on the stock ECU is yet another microcontroller sitting between the stock ECU fuel pump signal that translates the digital signal from the ECU into a PWM signal going into the fuel pump controller. Or I'd have to take apart their 2 speed controller, look for another digital input that could be used, and somehow figure out how to rewrite the code to be able to specify arbitrary duty cycles for "full speed", "medium speed", and "low speed".

Make sure the FPR you buy can actually return a ton of fuel if you plan on running it with the stock ECU, otherwise you are going to seriously overfuel as the fuel pressure will overshoot. Or you will have to come up with some kind of alternate solution to replace the stock FPCM to slow down the pumps at low RPM. You don't actually want to have too much fuel flowing on the return line, it heats up the fuel and eats away at reserve amps on your alternator. You could also cavitate the pump running the tank low much more easily. Only pulling 40A for a short period at WOT is a very different thing compared to pulling 40A all the time just to run your fuel pumps. I've also heard that the stock fuel rail actually flows just fine for big power, so you may want to think about how necessary that really is. I've been agonizing over something similar on my R33 and I think my conclusion is to run a 5 bar FPR on a DW440 brushless fuel pump to get just enough flow to max out my dinky little twin turbos. The hard part is the controller, I don't really see any simple drop-in replacement that can use the OEM ECU fuel pump signals to set an appropriate fuel pump duty cycle. It really shouldn't be that complicated, just 3 speeds instead of the 2 speed variants I've seen and some method of programming the desired duty cycle for each speed.

Isn’t there a speedo calibration resistor network on the back of the gauge cluster? Or is it more complicated than the R33 in that regard?

98 RON is 93 AKI, roughly speaking.

In this video at 1:45 Skaife mentions that the engines ran 1.8 or 1.9 bar and roughly 650-700 hp for max attack, probably qualifying. For the actual race 1.2 or 1.3 bar, roughly 600 hp: Modern technology helps but at the end of the day people have mentioned that the RB26 starts flexing in ways that are not conducive for longevity around the 700-800 crank hp mark even with a dry sump to 100% fix any oiling concerns. You can use block braces and all that fun stuff to keep pushing the limits but strictly speaking about what Nissan engineers designed the RB26 block to do it sounds a lot like 600 hp for group A with a 1.2x safety factor to me, with additional derate depending upon how long you want to go between rebuilds. To me 600 hp is a lot, especially from a dinky little 2.6-2.8L engine but you might not agree. Even with 2.8L that would be on par with stuff like the A45S AMG which has the highest specific output engine in a production car today.