Sydneykid

The suspension geometry on the rear is the limiting factor. It all turns to shyte when you get it below 340 mm. The front is somewhat more tolerant, the geometry doesn't get too ugly until 325 mm. cheers

I would like to put forward an alternative view; 1. Retains Full Diagnostics through Consult Interface But I find the Commander display a better diagnostic tool, with multiple views. Plus I don’t have to buy a Consult reader and/or display 2. Retains Full Datalogging through Consult Interface So does PFC with Datalogit 3. Full knock sensor feedback Commander shows knock levels on the display in real time, plus it has adjustable dash light flash warning levels 4. Rapid and accurate closed loop feedback control (good mileage) So does the PFC 5. Virtually Undetectable I guess if someone wants to go to the trouble of pulling the kick panel off and seeing a PFC they will just as likely spend 2 minutes more and check for the chipped ECU 6. Less Expensive than PFC Only the first time it needs tuning, every time thereafter the PFC is cheaper. Plus you have a choice of tuners with a PFC. 7. Proven to Pass EPA Test (vic) even with bigger turbo's and injectors etc I have had 4 cars pass NSW EPA with PFC’s, it’s all in the tuning, not the hardware. 8. Can be returned to standard in under 5 mins Swapping from PFC to standard ECU takes about the same. Plus you can sell the PFC for almost what you paid for it, try that with a chip. PFC’s are THE most popular ECU for Skylines, there is always a market for them. If I had an R34GTT auto the good Dr would be getting a call, but for a manual, a PFC is my choice. Cheers

I have had 3 Skylines (R32GTST, R33GTST and R34GTT) with Power FC's and Boost control kits, none of them rattle. cheers

Standard throttle bodies, with the inlet manifold match ported to the cylinder head = 750 bhp no problems. Way more than you should be using for your purposes. cheers

I would add that using coil leads from the coil packs to the spark plugs simply adds another 6 electrical joints likely to cause problems. Coil on plug design was done for a reason, RELIABILITY. cheers

Absolutely, no problems, PM sent with details. cheers

I honestly don’t see the point in spending a shyte load of time degreeing in the cams perfectly. When all I am going to do is keep changing the cam timing on the dyno until I get the desired power result. Sure if I am doing a single cam in block engine (like the Commondoor Cup engine last weekend) I will spend a great deal of time with the degree wheel and dial gauge getting the cam timing exactly to where it has proven to produce the most power previously. But that’s because I can’t change it all that easily on the dyno. Plus I know where it developed the best power before, and, since it’s a control engine spec, I know it will develop the most power again at the same cam timing. But on DOHC engine where it takes minutes to change the cam timing on the dyno, I only see it a waste of my valuable time. cheers

OK, you have a lot of money invested in the RB25 cylinder head, to much to throw it away (and use an RB26 cylinder head). My understanding is that you are going to make an adaptor so that you can run the RB26 throttle bodies, as you need the response. The standard RB26 plenum has proven to be very effective up to ~600 bhp. Over that, the common choice is the Nismo plenum, a number of people (Mines, HKS etc) utilise it to good effect for circuit use. For drag use there are a number of single throttle body plenums that will do the job, but the huge volume of the plenum and the distances (from the inlet valves to the single throttle body) are not good for throttle response. cheers

Standard links on R33's and R34's, but Whiteline links on R32's. You want me to send you a link kit, I have a couple of spare sets? PM will do. cheers PS; I don't have any spare D bushes or D brackets though.

There are a few examples of unusual tuning changes, for example the injector maps; Look along L17, note it reverses direction from 126 to 124 at N15/16. Based on what I have seen, that's never happens. They always need more fuel at higher rpm, not less Now look down N16, note the smooth increases as the load increases except for L14/15 where it also reverses direction from 126 to 124. Once again, based on what I have seen, they always need more fuel at higher loads (airflow), not less. The proliferation of 126’s from L17 to L20 and N15 to N20 are signs of un-tuned areas. Even if the engine doesn’t reach that area on the dyno, I would always extrapolate the results accordingly. cheers

Ours was bought at auction in Japan in May 2004, arrived in June 2004, registered in August 2004. Bought to replace an old ED Falcon waggon for towing the race car (R32GTST) and other general waggon duties (ie; carrying stuff). Cheers

If you want it to, yes the springs are shorter by 20 mm. cheers

200.16.006 doesn't make sense, is it a typo? You need to measure the free height and the ID just to be sure. The numbering convention says 200 mm free height and 62 mm (2 1/2") ID. So all I have to do is order some Eibach springs for the rear with the same free height and ID, but wiht a more applicable spring rate, say around 4kg/mm. The free height difference in the front (180 mm versus 200 mm) can be accommodated in the height adjustment. Which you will have to do anyway as the lower rate springs will compress more with the weight of the car on them. To answer your questions; Usually when you use more appropriate spring rates the handling improves, you have more traction as the tyres don't leap from bump to bump, they actually stay on the road. Yes, the height adjustability stays, just changing the spring rate, that's all. cheers

Hi James, I am totally confused and finding it hard to give a solid opinion without clarification, so let's try some questions; 1. What cylinder head is it? 2. Is the head standard or ported? 3. What boost are you using? 4. What ECU? 5. What cams? 6. Solid or hydraulic followers? 7. What RPM are you using? 8. Internals? 9. Got a dyno graph? The answer will quickly lead tothe right selction of parts. cheers

I have helped a few guys out with this problem. As you have mentioned, the cheapest solution is to swap the rear springs to the front and then buy some more appropriately rated rear springs. For that option I would need to know the coil ID and its free height. Then I can specify a replacement spring that will fit the coil over shock. That works about 50% of the time and the guys have been happy with the result. Some guys still find the front spring rate too harsh. So we then change the front spring rate for one that is more appropriately rated. That satisfies about 25% more of the guys. The last 25% still don’t find the ride acceptable as the shocks are too harsh, even on their “softest” setting. So they keep the springs I have supplied, sell the coil over kit to someone who doesn’t mind the harsh ride. Then I supply a set of Bilsteins with (coil over conversions) valved to suite. So there is no waste of money in the process. PM me if you want me details. cheers

A small number of R32GTR Bilsteins are currently in stock, don’t delay, there isn’t that many and they will go fast. cheers

It was, I cleared it today, 30 PM's overnight. cheers

Personally, I don't think so. That would show up in the WOT/full load dyno A/F ratios and they are a nice steady 12 to 1. cheers

Nope, that was allowing for MAXIMUM porting. I know what they flow on the flow bench and it is nowhere near 500 bhp worth of airlfow. That's with the biggest (oversized) valves you can fit in the head as well. cheers

1. That’s a full power, WOT test. So it is 99% irrelevant, how much of the time do you drive around at WOT? . More importantly, what are the A/F ratios as partial throttle openings? At idle? What are the acceleration enrichment settings? Cold and hot start settings? 2. Together with the fuel in the catch can, it is the black smoke on start up that has me concerned. Give it a run on the dyno, but make sure you test idle, cruise, acceleration enrichment, partial throttle openings etc. 3. I would also have a good look at the fuel pressures, just to be sure that increasing fuel pressure is not the problem. 4. If that doesn’t show up anything then I would have the injectors flow tested. If one is rich for some reason, then the other 5 might be lean, giving 12 to 1 on average. cheers

The problem is the SOHC head doesn’t flow enough air (without boost) to make anywhere near 500 bhp. So using ever increasing RPM (to get more BHP) is not really an option. cheers

The viscous fan drive is bolted to the water pump pulley by 4 bolts with 10 mm heads, I remove the fan and the drive hub all at once. ie; there is no need to remove the fan itself from the viscous hub. The alternator, water pump and air con compressor all have adjustable tension. Note the amount of tension before you touch them, so that you can duplicate it when reassembling. The usual method is to measure the slack, around 5 to 10 mm side to side is normal. Undo, but don’t remove, the retaining bolts (bottom) on the alternator and water pump brackets. Then loosen the adjuster, move them in towards the engine and remove the belts. The air con compressor has an external tensioner, undo its bolt, slacken it off and remove the belt. Remove the spark plugs and turn it over by hand (socket and ratchet) using the harmonic balancer retaining bolt. If you want to do more engine bay work, I strongly suggest that you buy a translated workshop manual, best $100 you will spend. cheers

Not sure, probably a combination of; 1. Their roads are a little better than ours, but not 300% better. Maybe if you drove up and down the Wangan all day, but otherwise no. 2. The shocks are fairly simplistic in their valving, so they have to use big springs rates to control the chassis. Whereas the Europeans tend to use lower spring rates with sophisticated shock valving to control the chassis. Which is technically a superior solution. 3. They try to do everything with spring rates, rather than use stabiliser bars, anti dive and anti squat geometry. As a comparison, in Australia we have a long history of stabiliser bar upgrades courtesy of KMac and Selbys. 4. Their aftermarket buyer relates hard/harsh/super low with good handling, which is, of course, totally false. 5. There seems to be a value for money equation that says you have to really feel how hard it is, so you know your getting something for your money. That’s reverse logic to, it feels so nice and controlled, the ride comfort is good, so it can’t really handle that well. Which again is totally false. Personally I reckon it is little bit of 1, 4 and 5 and a lot of 2 and 3. Cheers

14 to 1 compression ratio and methanol is entirely possible. The bhp is questionable, particularly if it is still SOHC. My guess would be 350 bhp, or thereabouts cheers

Based on my experiences, 2530’s on a 3 litre would be like 2510’s on a 2.6 litre, which was a very popular selection for a road/circuit GTR. Highly responsive, without feeling too choked at high rpm (7,000 rpm or so). You could easily get 1 bar at 3,000 rpm at WOT, but if you don’t want/need boost then, don’t open the throttle so much. I very nearly went for a pair of 2530’s on my first RB30, but the old T04 came up at a good price. I would really like to see an RB30 with 400 rwkw using 2530’s, it would be a real high average power weapon. Keep in mind that 2530’s are used on the re-released R32GTR Z Tune, which uses an RB27 with a 264 inlet cam and a 272 exhaust. The 272 exhaust indicates that maybe they used the longer exhaust duration to smooth out the boost hit. Which is a trick you could use on an RB30. cheers