Sydneykid

The intercooler and its pipework are restrictions. The inlet manifold including the plenum can be a restriction The throttle body/bodies can be a restriction Inlet and exhaust ports in the cylinder head are restrictions Camshaft timing and lift are obvious restrictions Valves are a restriction Valve seats can cause turbulence, another restriction The exhaust manifold is a restriction The turbine itself is a restriction The wastegate is a restriction The dump, engine pipe, cat and cat back exhaust are restrictions Remove the restrictions and the boost goes down, the airflow goes up and so does the power. If all of the components are matched to the airflow (necessary for the power target) then the efficiency will also be at its highest, which means better response. The trick is knowing which of the items is going to be a major restriction for your particular power target on your engine and then removing them. The old school thinking on turbocharged engines used to be “who cares about that stuff, just turn up the boost”. But the late 80’s F1, the turbo Group A era, WRC's and, to a lesser extent, Indy cars have all killed of that thinking. Cheers

I must be having a dumb day, I don't understand what it is you are are trying to say. Lets go though the potential problems as listed on http://www.fcai.com.au/ethanol.php/2006/04/00000005.html one by one; I have not experienced this problem, since R32/33/34’s are fuel injected I doubt that we ever will I have checked this in the 1 X R32GTST, 2 X R32GTR’s, 1 X Stagea RS4, 1 X R33GTST and 5 Hondas. Not a sign, fuel filters and injectors are perfect. Since R32/33/34’s run closed fuel systems, via the carbon canister, hygroscopic action is virtually impossible. Water in the fuel from a service station can occur regardless of whether it contains ethanol or not I have checked this in the 1 X R32GTST, 2 X R32GTR’s, 1 X Stagea RS4, 1 X R33GTST and 5 Hondas. Not a sign, fuel filters and injectors are perfect. The cars with Power FC’s actually run better on Optimax Extreme as their base mapping is done for 100 ron fuel. It doesn't seem to have any effect that I can notice on the standard ECU equiped vehicles, and I am trained by experience to feel for even small changes in engine running. I have noticed this, only on the R33GTST with the Power FC, a slight tweak of the cold start injector dwell fixed it. We have not noticed anything on the standard ECU equipped cars. I don’t care I don’t care If I have missed something, please tell me what it is and I will test for it. I have all access to all of the gear necessary to check for whatever problem it is you think I should. cheers

So he took our advice then? cheers

I suggest you ring Toyota and ask them; Do they mean 100% ethanol? Or 10% ethanol? Or 5% ethanol.? They (like Nissan) are conveniently vague and simply lump all ethanol fuels into one bucket. And any chemical engineer will tell you that is technically incorrect. They are simply saving their ass from any possibility (no mater how small), that one of their customers somewhere in the world might use 100% ethanol and have a problem. Remember this is not an Australian edict, it’s WORLD WIDE. So they have to take into account the most extreme cases in 3rd world countries where some guy will boil up a pot of sugar cane and poor it into his Camry. Think about what we are discussing here. Ethanol supposedly eats stuff from the in side out. If this was happening, then I could see it in the fuel filter when I cut it open. Or in the injectors when I clean them. I don’t, haven’t in the R33GTST for almost 6 months, that’s 1,300 litres or ~30 full tanks full of Optimax Extreme. I have tested it, I haven’t found a problem. If you are afraid, then test it yourself. If you don’t want to do that, then don’t use it. It is that simple. cheers

Hello .................... over here ............... RB30DET in R32GTR, started in 1999 finished in 2000 Shall I show you the first post on SDU, where I told RIPs the principles? He can probably lay claim to the first R32GTS4 with RB30, no argument there. In 1995 we also did a very early (not the first, but close to it) RB30 "D" ET, using an RB20DET cylinder head. I need to check the exact numbers but I think we are up to ~10 X RB30's with 4wd. The quality of the supplied adaptor plates (the race team fabricator doesn't have time to make them any more) has been steadily improving with our input. So what was a minor irritation 12 months ago, no longer exists. cheers

The smartest post on this page. The fixation with boost versus power is meaningless. A car with more boost does not necessarily make more power than a car with less boost. Airflow is what makes power, removing restrictions decreases boost, but increases airflow. So lower boost can actually mean more power. When you apply that logic, the “HKS turbos make more boost” argument falls over. What if my power target is achieved at “low” boost because I have removed the restrictions? What if the Garrett turbo produces the airflow I need to make my power target at that “low” boost level? If I used a HKS turbo I would be using it “outside” its efficiency band. That would be pretty stupid wouldn’t it? I have great fun with guys who brag “my car runs 2 bar boost”. My response is “WOW, you haven’t removed many restrictions have you”. cheers

Bad fuel pump is not the same as uneven fuel pressure. Bad fule pump means #6 gets ot use the fuel first as that's where the fuel inlet is Then #5 grabs some of what's left. Then #4 etc. So when we get to #3 and #2 there wasn't much fuel left, hence lean running. Maybe #1 survived because there was zero fuel left. Which is not leaning running, it is not running at all. cheers

Not Autos and not Australian delivered S15's, only the JDM manual has higher than 370 cc's cheers

I thought we had covered this subject quite thoroughly a couple of years ago. At the expense of repeating myself, there are 3 main issues with RB26's 1. #6 is the furthest for the water pump/radiator, hence runs slightly hotter. This is indistinguishable from the circulation differences which straight sixes always have. 2. #6 is the furthest from the fuel pressure regulator, hence has slightly lower fuel pressure. This is common hydraulic theory in practise. 3. #6 gets the most airflow, by a very small amount as it is at the end of the plenum and gets slightly higher air pressure as a result. Don't ask me to explain why, aerodynamics is not my specialty. 4. We have done lots of testing on RB26's with individual cylinder EGT and A/F ratios readings. We have 3 EGT sensors and 3 lambda sensors that use the same fittings. Regularly we use infra red temperature sensing via a hand held pyrometer to check the individual cylinder tune. It is much quicker than swapping EGT and Lambda sensors between primary pipes and gives very reliable results. Fixing one of the problems (as above) does not guarantee a perfect result. So don't just think that by feeding the fuel rail centrally you have fixed the problem. In fact our testing showed this (#2) to be the least of the 3 problems. (Hence I suspect why the Mines and Gibson Skylines retained the standard fuel rail). So what can you do to fix the problem? Well this is what we have done to equalise the EGT's and A/ F ratios on our race engines. A. We always put the highest flowing injector into #6 (then the next highest into #5 etc). Differences of 1.5% in injector flow rate is not unusual, regardles of brand, aftermarket or standard. B. We then tune the individual cylinder injector trim to give equal primary pipe (exhaust manifold) temperature using a $100 infra read pyrometer. On a tighly tuned engine (over 12.5 to 1 A/F ratio) we check the results using the 3 EGT sensors and 3 Lambda sensors by swapping them around amongst the 6 cylinders. This is not a cheap tuning process, due to heat soak contaminating the results this can take several days on the dyno. I would expect that a road engine tuned to 12 to 1 and with highest flowing injector in #6 would not require this amount of money to be spent on it. With a drag or circuit race engine that is tighly tuned, I would suggest it is worthwhile. Hope that has been of some use cheers

My 20 cents worth on 2 items; 1. AFM and resitrictions = absolute BS. If you use the same flowing AFM as the turbo inlet than it can't possibly be a restriction. I have seen cars with 1100 + bhp runnig AFMs'. Don't let that urban myth make up you mind on which ECU to use. N/A enigne live on die on the quality of their inlet flow, zero restriction is still too much. Turbo engines are not as much dependent on pre-turbo inlet restrictions as they are on their turbo's flow rate. If the turbo has airflow to spare (to make your power target) then minor reductions in the inlet rerstrictons will make no difference. Spend your time and money elsewhere. 2. As someone who has tuned (not very well, I will admit) with, Electromotive, Power FC, Motec, Autronic, Microtech, Link, Haltec etc ecu's I can tell you the fastest ECU to tune with is one that runs an AFM as its primary load source. I can get a tune with a Power FC for $300 that would cost $1200 to get to the same level with a Motec. So not only do you need to think about who is going to tune it, you need to keep in mind what your budget is for that tuning. Don't leave out fitting either, there is a great deal of difference in that cost as well. Lastly the speed and accuracy of the ECU is important, but you may not see any difference in the dyno numbers. Why is that the case? Well, on the dyno you run the car up in 4th gear and relatively slowly increase the rpm and load, this gives time for the ECU to adjust its fuel and ignition. Compare that to what happens in real life when the engine rips though 1st and 2nd gear in seconds, even 3rd is faster than the dyno. This transient accuracy and speed is why you pay more for a high end ECU. As wiht everything the fast and accurate stuff costs more For example we changed from a Link to a Motec in one of the Production race cars and it was 0.75 seconds a lap faster, but it didn't make 1 bhp more on the dyno. Translate that to a road car and it means slower response to inputs, poorer fuel economy, rougher running at all rpms etc. None of which equates to more power, but do make the car slower. I am not here to make more power, I am here to make my cars go faster. cheers

Order on hold as his car was stolen. Good luck with the recovery, hope it comes back and in perfect condition. cheers

Yep, from memory it started in September. We stopped for a month or so when Bilstein ran out in December/January. Then Bilstein Germany sent over some via airfreight, so we could restart it again. I have recently closed the R32GTR Group Buy as there are no R32GTR front Bilsteins left until the next production run. I know you are asking when the R32GTST Bilsteins will run out, the answer is I have no idea. Sometimes Bilstein sell 1 set a week, but the R32GTR's sold 10 sets in 2 weeks. Hence all goooooone. My suggestion would be (same as a few guys have done) put down a $400 deposit to secure the Bilsteins, then pay the rest when you have it. cheers

It depends on what caused the seal to blow ie; they don't just blow for no reason. For example, if it was shaft wear then you need ot replace the worn bits as well as the seal. cheers

Tokico, very large shock manufacturer, they make twin tube shocks for car manfacturers to fit as OE. Cost effective aftermarket solution, if you don't have much money. They do make a limited range of "sports" style shocks, but nothing special. cheers

You will need the GTR D bushes. cheers PS; It's a waste of time, the GTR bar is hardly any stiffer.

Do some shopping on the web the range of 17" rims is far greater than 18's. What you see in tyre shops is what the manager likes, not necessarily what you like. cheers

What he wants; 1. 18" wheels, that means low profile tyres 2. Slightly lower ride height 3. Good ride comfort 4. Not overly concerned with handling My advice via PM was....... the most effective way to lower it, retain acceptable ride comfort and achieve superior handling is by changing the shocks. The Bilsteins in the Group Buy come with additional circlip grooves which enable you to lower it using the standard springs. Around 24 mm lowering (from standard) works very well, and is the most I would suggest. I post this up for the benefit of others in similar situations. cheers

Hi, let's clear up a the size issue. 1. The Whiteline bars in the Group Buy are selected (by me) to suite that application, they are for a road car with the occasional circuit and drag use. Plus they are matched to the Whiteline spring and Bilstein shock rates. 2. If you have a road car with lots of circuit use, then we would go to the next size up ie; 27 mm front 24 mm rear, both adjustable. This means I can still use the matched to the Whiteline spring and Bilstein shock rates and the car is not uncomfortable to use on the road. 3. The Whiteline adjustable stabiliser bars have bladed ends on the arms, to allow for the adjustment holes. This blading effectively stiffens up the bar as it removes the flex that you get in a round bar. On the Group Buy's softest setting a 24 mm adjustable bar is the same rate as a 24 mm fixed rate bar, and then there are 4 settings siffer than that. So the diameter alone doesn't tell you the whole story. 4. A 27 mm adjustable bar on the full stiffness setting is almost equivalent to a 30 mm fixed rate bar. So, it's not how thick it is, but how you use it (where have a I heard that before?) cheers

I have updated the links to the new gallery in this thread. cheers

Are you intested in a swap for some new supension parts? Say $1300 worth for the cams? cheers

He is trapped in 2 minds; 1. The deal is when he beats me, I stop racing. That means he gets the race car all to himself. 2. But he is afraid that if I stop driving it, I won’t make it any faster Interesting problem for him to deal with, keeps his mind off beating me cheers

The current trend in split dumps is to extend the turbine pipe past the flange and inside the turbine cover. It fits neatly/tightly inside the turbine cover. This stops any chance of wastegate exhaust contaminating the flow (causing turbulence) from the turbine. The more common style has a little bridge that is welded to the dump pipe flange and stops 99% of the cross contamination. The pipe extension is a better system, it stops 100%. The problem with the pipe extension style of dump is when you get the turbo high flowed they machine out the turbine cover and the extension pipe is then too small to fit tightly/neatly into the larger hole. So if you are intending to get a high flow later on you need to order the more common style with the bridge that fits both standard and high flow turbine covers. cheers

There isn't any real difference between the RB25DE, RB25DET, RB25DET Neo and the RB26DETT bare cylinder heads, the castings are almost identical. The advantage of the RB26DETT cylinder head is in the hardware (valves, springs cams, followers, inlet, exhaust etc) attached to the cylinder head, not the head itself. cheers

When you lean out the A/F ratios with the SAFC it also advances the ignition timing at the same time. Remember all the SAFC does is to change the voltage from the AFM that the ECU sees. Usually that means reducing the voltage to lean out the A/F ratios and overcome the Rich part of the Rich and Retard ECU mapping. By reducing the voltage the ECU thinks the engine is operating at a lower load and hence stops (or at least reduces) the Retard part of the Rich and Retard mapping. This means that you have to compromise the tune, sometimes you want to go a little bit leaner but you can’t because you get pre-ignition from the advanced ignition timing. Up to a certain power level (usually 185 – 200 rwkw on an RB25DET) this is not too much of a compromise. But once you go over that power level, the compromise starts to get greater, exponentially. That’s the advantage of the Power FC you can control the fuel and ignition independently, no compromise required. This really comes into it own once you get past that power level. As yet I havn’t been able to find the upper limit of a Power FC, certainly 1100 bhp is not it. The power output of an engine can be considered to be like a chain, only as good as its weakest link. For example if you have an exhaust that will only flow 195 rwkw of air, then tuning the engine slightly better won’t make anywhere near as much difference as if it had a 300 rwkw capable exhaust. In relation to the 10 psi versus the 12 psi, the standard turbo really gets pretty inefficient at 12 psi and starts to heat up the airflow. If the intercooler isn’t up to it (removing that excess heat) then the extra boost won’t actually manifest itself in extra power. This is particularly noticeable on the dyno when you have only a fan, not 180kph air flow as you would have on the road. cheers

Yep, no problems, that can be done. As an alternative, some guys have a left a deposit ($400) and Jamex puts their shocks aside until they pay for the rest. cheers