Sydneykid

OK, so you are on the SAU cruise to Port Stephens and the car just stops, what are you going to do? If it's a Power FC, you look at the Commander and it will most likely tell you what's wrong. Ditto the Wolf. If It's a Motec or Autronic you plug your (or someone elses) laptop in and it will most likely tell you what’s wrong. Worst case you get it towed to any one of 6 tuning shops in the area and they can have a look for you. If it’s a FConV you are forced to have it towed to BD4’s, because no one else has the software to do anything for you. I would feel like I had an electric car with a cable that didn’t let me get more than 10 k’s from the power point at BD4’s. No thank you. cheers

Don’t you just love the Janglish It sounds like it may retard the ignition for a fixed period of time when the throttle opening is constant, the rpm rises sharply and the knock sensors encounter pre-ignition. If that is the case, this is more of an engine protection strategy than a shift logic program. The idea being to stop the engine over revving on a full throttle upchange. The FConV supports this feature in manual form, which is useful when using a dog engagement gearbox. I did note the lack of the words “ignition cut”, which is also a concern. It’s use of the words “fixed time” that gives the most concern. Obviously the speed of the gearchange is different depending on the circumstances occurring at the time of the gearchange. Hence the ignition retard/cut needs to be varied in time with the gearchange, most definitely not fixed length. BUT even worse than that, as the power of the engine increases the speed of the gearchange needs to be limited, you can’t have long periods of slip. It firstly wastes acceleration torque and secondly (more importantly) wears the bands and clutch packs. So the question you need to ask the tuner is can he vary the ignition retard for gearchanges based on the 3 input parameters, engine RPM, throttle position and road speed? To accomplish this, the ECU will need a 3 dimensional map that he can “tune” to suite your engine’s torque output and the gearboxes shift pattern. If he can’t because of knowledge/training or because the mapping simply isn’t there then you are slightly better off then you would be with a Wolf, but not as well off as you would be with the Motec or Autronic. The final question, if he can do it, how much is he going to charge you for it? Because it's not a 5 minute job that can be done on the dyno, it's many hours of driving around in varying conditons. cheers

Toe and particularly camber change are important as well Add to your list Proflex, DMS, Ohlins, Sachs, Koni, Bilstein, Dynamic and few hundred others. The Aragosta's I have seen are Ohlins. cheers

You have no choice, the crush tube taper usually means the knob goes inwards. If you haven't already, disconnect the stabiliser bar cheers

I want a black one with a horsey please. cheers

The Neo turbine cover is different/larger. GCG can do the high flow no problems, for the same price. But you have to send in your own turbo to get high flowed. Can't do exchange because of the lack of R34GTT turbine covers, Turn around is 3-4 working days, PM me if you want to go ahead and I can arrange. Or if you don't need the handfull of extra kw's (from the Neo turbine cover) you can get a non neo high flow exchanged for yours. They bolt up just the same. cheers

This a copy of my PM to Stan, I think it answers and asks the important questions. I have never used an HKS FCon V ECU, and I never will. Even if they gave them away for free. I am completely uncomfortable with only having one tuner that can tune them. I have seen nothing in either the spec list or price that would encourage me to even consider using one. I have no doubt that they are a good ECU, but not the best by any stretch of the imagination either technically or value for money. You are taking a big risk, you have no other tuner to turn to if you have a problem. If you are say in Melbourne on holidays and the car stops you are screwed. No one can help you, for the cost of towing it back to Sydney you can buy a Power FC. Please consider carefully what it means to you to be in the hands of one person. Moving onto automatics, as usual they are telling half of the story. The engine ECU needs to tell the gearbox some stuff. Typically engine rpm, throttle position and road speed so that the gearbox ECU knows when to change gear, up or down. Most ECU’s are capable of this and are “advertised” as being auto gearbox compatible. Power FC, Wolf, Motec, Autronic all have this capability. This means the gearbox will change gear, if the ECU doesn’t have this capability, the gearbox will simply stay in the one gear all the time BUT (there is always a but) what they don’t tell you is the standard engine ECU also has ignition cut and retard logic programming. This means that the gearbox ECU tells the engine ECU when it is about to change gear and the engine ECU cuts or retards the ignition timing. This softens the gearchange, makes it less harsh, not sudden or jerky. More importantly it protects the gearbox from excessive torque loading while it is changing gear. This gives flare free gearchanges, remember you don’t lift your foot on the gearchange like in a manual. It also protects the gearbox from band and clutch pack damage and premature wear. Think about the current gearchanges, they are relatively smooth and flare free all the time, full throttle, part throttle, up hill, down hill, around corners, one passenger or 5, luggage or no luggage etc etc According to Nissan the amount of programming in the automatic engine ECU to give those sorts of results is HUGE. In fact more lines of code than in the ignition and injection maps combined. This is not cheap to develop or program that’s why no aftermarket ECU manufacturer has bothered to spend the millions necessary to test and program their ECU. Considering the small demand, they would have to sell them for maybe $10K each to make any money. No one would buy them at that price, so they simply don’t make them. Now have a think about what that means when you increase the power output of the engine, presumably that’s why you are changing the ECU. The rough changes just get rougher, the bands just wear out faster, the clutch packs over heat faster, the flare on gearchanges just gets worse, the gearbox wear rate is hugely accelerated. I have driven several Skylines with various ECU’s claiming compatibility with autos. Remember I have a strong personal interest, the Stagea is an auto. I have yet to find one that I would use in my own car. They were almost all exactly the same, rough change, jerky and just not nice to drive. This is why I have gone the SAFC (actually DFA) and SITC route. Don’t confuse this with other cars, Toyotas for example. They have the ignition cut and retard programming in the gearbox ECU. That’s why you will see Power FFC’s for Toyota autos. The bottom line, ask BD4’s the hard questions as above and then make your own decision. cheers

As long as the compressor and turbine covers are OK, it's all good. The rest pretty much gets chucked anyway Most of the ones being sent in for high flowing have no ceramic turbine left cheers

I am assuming this is an R32 by the picture. If so, it should have grease nipple on the upper control arms. Just get some grease pumped in there. If it doens't have grease nipples them someone left them off, bad mechanic, slap on wrist. So you will need to get some fitted and then grease them up. Cheers

According to that comparison Paul can make the legitimate claim that the 2530's make more power than the standard turbos EVERYWHERE. That's a true accomplishment I have tried all sorts of turbos and I still prefer the 2530 on an RB26 everytime. cheers

GCG Ball Bearing High Flow on the Group Buy for $1750 delivered with all the parts necessary to fit straight on. http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...howtopic=121128 cheers

I notice that at ~3,000 rpm the power has gone from 82 rwkw to 105 rwkw, that’s a 28% increase. That is definitely noticeable and certainly worthwhile having. We have been using Shell Optimax Extreme 100 ron exclusively since it became available in Sydney in the R33GTST. It has a PFC running the default ignition timing which knocks noticeably (dash warning) on 98 ron. In several months running the 100 ron we have not seen any dash warnings and the logged knock levels are less than 20. I have modified the injection maps for a target A/F ratio of 12 to 1. I have heard all of the ethanol stories, eats fuel lines, blocks injectors, roots fuel pumps and gives your unborn two heads. So I have pulled the injectors a couple of times, checked the flow rates and guess what? No changes. Also I have cut the last 3 fuel filters open and guess what? No decomposed fuel hoses in there either. We also log fuel pressure and guess what? The fuel pump is showing no signs of dying. Sorry, I can’t test the unborn baby theory. I have checked with everyone that I now who is running Shell Optimax Extreme 100 ron in their Skyline and I have yet to find anyone who can report eaten fuel lines, clogged injectors, blocked fuel filters or failed fuel pumps. My suggestion, get on with it and reap the benefits. cheers PS; if you like smell, you should try Elf TurboMax, now that's a killer odour

Try this Group Buy; http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...howtopic=109970 cheers

Since everyone else is ripping into you I might as well have go. Kick you while you are down to make sure you don’t get up. I have yet to find an ECU of any BRAND at any PRICE that has the ignition cut and retard logic programming for the Nissan auto. It requires extensive (expensive) programming and no aftermarket ECU manufacturer has been able to justify the cost. cheers PS, yes I have driven a Wolf with an auto and it was shit, rough changes, flaring, slippage etc etc all the things you would expect to encounter without the ignition cut/interrupt and retard programs.

Hi Chris, sure there is a change in materials used, but the quality of the fabrication, regardless of materials, is the impressive part. 1. From memory the ECU is an Electromotive, they also made the Nissan ECU’s for the LeMans prototypes 2. The water head tank is located just in front of the RHS strut tower. It has 3 connections, one to the cylinder head and 2 to the radiator. Note that the radiator was mounted lower so as to give room for the airfilter box and ambient air feed for the turbos. So the high mount header/filler tank was necessary. 3. The fuel system is the endurance race spec, so it has back up/redundancy system plus a 2 lap reserve with a lower pick up in the tank. 4. The Group A regs allowed modifications in the suspension arms. Conceptually because they were running slicks it was considered a safety issue. The standard components may break under the loads. 5. Bump steer (front and rear) was zero over 80 mm of sprint race suspension movement. I know the endurance race spec was different due to the weight of fuel. 6. I believe the Gibson guys made 5/6 in Australia, 2/3 for overseas customers, 2 team cars and 1 local customer car (the GIO/Windscreen O’Brien car). In Japan I saw one grid of over 20 X R32GTR’s in the one Group A race. The ones I have seen overseas are not anywhere near the Gibson standard, they were considered by Nissan to be the best in the world. 7. From memory Group A was discontinued by FISA before the R33GTR was released, so I don’t think there are any Group A R33GTR’s. SuperTourers took over in the rest of the world and V8SuperCars here. cheers

I will keep my response brief as I am sure you will get plenty from the guys. I bought a Stagea firstly because I wanted a new waggon to carry stuff and tow the race car. Once that was firmly established, I then went looking for a superior waggon. A Stagea auto was the best result, performance and value for money I could find. From what you have written you have not mentioned any need for a waggon or an automatic. So unless you have a hidden want, I would respectfully suggest that you would be better of with GTR. It will ultimately be faster for the same money spent. cheers

Hi Aaron, in circuit racing we are always looking for something better, if it’s also cheaper that’s a bonus. Not that that is the case in this instance, there is no race application here. As the guys on SAU know I do lots of comparisons, mostly suspension related, but plenty of times I have done other areas of interest. In the race team we have access to lots of equipment, flow benches, dynos (engine and chassis), computer simulation, shock dyno, spring rate tester etc etc. So in some ways I am in unique position as I don’t sell stuff, so I can do unbiased testing to very high standards. I will emphasise that I have no association with GCG, other than we buy turbos from them and I arranged a Group Buy with them. I have used their ball bearing high flow turbos on a number of cars over the years and found the results to be both satisfactory and duplicate able. I certainly don’t work for GCG or get paid by them in any way. In this particular instance it is a unique opportunity to compare a 250 rwkw rated plain bearing turbo (sold at a great price) with a similarly rated ball bearing high flow (that some consider the benchmark). Sure Garrett have done a similar comparison, but this time we get a dyno graph on an RB25DET (the most common Skyline engine on SAU). The results will be discussed for a long time, that’s for sure. Changing tune before and after changing parts is always a debateable point. If you do change tune, there is always the suspicion that the tune is responsible not the part that was changed. Some parts definitely require tuning to take advantage of their different specification. I am not so sure that 2 similarly rated turbos fall into that category. Remembering that what we are looking for here is the difference in power output over a wide rpm range. This will show any boost build differences through that rpm range. Which is 50% of the plain versus ball bearing debate. The other 50% is durability and I am not in a position to test that in a short time frame. I will not have time to fabricate parts or modify bolts or pipework, so please make sure you send me the turbo and whatever is necessary to do the swap. If that means $910 instead of $890 then so be it. I will talk to you over the next couple of days, it’s a little hectic around here. We have a new car in the race team, it needs to be ready to race at Oran Park next weekend and it has no suspension in it. Cheers

There is more to the #6 leaner issue than airflow, it is also the hottest running cylinder. It is the furthest from the water pump, it is the furthest from the oil pump, it gets the hottest air flow etc etc. What we do is tune the primary pipe temperature so they are the same. Put the highest flowing injector in #6 and then trim the fuel in all the cylinders to give the same exhaust gas temperature. I have yet to find a "perfect" inlet system at all practical boost levels, aerodynamics is like that. cheers

Whilst I agree on the price point difference, I don't agree with you (most unusually) in regard to them not being aimed at the same customer. There are at least 5 guys posting in this thread who are doing the price versus performance comparison. Do I spend $890 in 2 weeks of saving up? Or do I wait for 4 weeks of saving up and spend $1750? I haven't seen anyone say "my turbo is dead today and I only have $890 to spend". If you really think doing a performance comparison is a waste of time, I won't bother, I have plenty of other things to do. cheers

Hi Aaron, I thought this was pretty simple. The guys on here are comparing an $890 turbo with a $1750 turbo from GCG, and saying that the $890 turbo is better value for money. So all I wanted to do was stick an $890 turbo on one of my cars and compare it with what it currently makes with the GCG turbo (without changing anything). That will tell the guys whether the $890 turbo is good value for money or not. I am not really interested in a PERFECT comparison of bush bearing versus ball bearing, Garrett already did that in the graph I posted earlier. Since they sell both plain bearing and ball bearing turbos and have nothing to gain, in this instance I believe Garretts results. For those who missed it; So send me whatever turbo you have been selling (and will continue to sell) to the guys for $890. I will personally do the R&R of the turbos, I will do the dyno runs and I will publish the results. If your turbo makes within 10% of the current power from 3,000 rpm to 7,000 rpm I will pay you for it, post up the dyno comparison and I will endorse it on SAU in anyway you like. But if it doesn’t make within 10%, what will you do? cheers

Recently we took the R33GTST out to WSID for a bit of a run. The mods so far are; Power FC with Boost Control kit Standard R32GTR FMIC with 120 degree intercooler pipework Turbosmart BOV NGK copper plugs plugs at 0.65 mm Kakimoto 3" cat back Magic 4" cat Boost at 0.7 bar (10 psi) Standard turbo, dump engine pipe, injectors, AFM POD and ambient air feed Full Group buy suspension kit The Group Buy 255/50/16 MT ET radials on the rear Unfortunately the unknown clutch died after 2 runs, but I did mange to log some A/F ratios with the Tech Edge WB02A. Using the TEWBLOG software this is a screen grab of one of the logged points; Firstly ignore the EGT numbers, I didn't have the EGT sensor in the car. 1. The Green trace. The A/F ratio at this particualr point was 11.9, my target for tuning was 12.0. so not too bad. It sits between 11.8 and 12.0 for the whole run. 2. The Light Blue trace. Engine RPM, this reading was at 5,244 rpm in 3rd gear. I know it was in third gear because I counted the gearchanges (throttle opening drops to 0 volts) during the run. 3. The Red trace. AFM voltage is at 4.7 volts, so we have some more to go till we get to the RB25DET AFM 5.12 volt limit. The 4.7 volts agrees with the Commander readout. 4. The Dark Blue trace. Throtttle position was 3.9 volts, 100% throttle opening as you would expect. I do see slight drift in the reading between 3.9 and 4.0 volts, what the book says is 100% throttle opening voltage. I am not too concerned as 0.1 volt may just be the quality of my push in connections. 5. The Yellow trace. Boost (PFC Boost Control Kit MAP sensor) voltage is 2.9 volts, that is equal to 0.7 bar (10 psi). I haven't gotten around to writing a conversion table, boost versus volts. When I do, this window will display the boost in bar. 6. The Orange trace. Water temp 12 millivolts (82 degrees C), I haven't gotten around to writing a conversion table, temp versus volts. When I do, this window will display the water temp in degrees C. Looking at the trace map, you can see lots of idling at zero or low throttle openings in the que. Then a burst of high throttle opening, the burn out (not really a true burn out). Then a little bit of idling, the 1/4 run itself and then plenty more idling and driving back to the pits. The high Red trace (throttle opening) tells you where the action was. That's what you can learn out of the Tech Edge in one run. I have no idea what power the R33GTST is making, it has never been on the dyno. Using the AFM voltage of 4.7 volts and the TS of 100 mph I would reckon soemwhere in the 170 to 180 rwkw range. Until we stick the GCG ball bearing high flow turbo on it I probably won't bother puting it on the dyno. I will tune it with the WB02A as we go along, then I will check the readings with the Motec A/F ratio meter we have with the dyno. cheers

Be carefull, if you have installed an A/F ratio meter off the standard slow and narrow lambda sensor then you CAN NOT rely on the readings. The standard lambda sensor only works around stoich (the narrow bit) and very slowly even then. It's for closed loop idle and cruise use only. You need a fast and wide lambda sensor and a suitable A/F ratio meter. Since the dyno is so far away, I strongly suggest that you spend the $700 and buy one. A boost cut defender is simply a voltage clamp, it stops the ECU seeing voltage from the AFM above the limit that you have set. As the airflow continues to rise above that point, the A/F ratios are getting leaner and leaner. There is more air going into the engine that the ECU doesn't know about, so it doesn't inject more fuel. If you are going on with more mods I strongly suggest either a Power FC or at the very least an SAFC. So you can control the AFM voltages (that the ECU sees) and therefore adjust the A/F ratios. That's when the A/F ratio meter becomes a very useful tool. I am currently using Tech Edge, details follow; http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...56&hl=tech+edge cheers

It's just simple numbers, follow the Sydneykid rule of thumb 1 cc of injector = 1 bhp in a 6 cylinder engine That's already allowing for 85% duty cycle (so don't take it away again later) 700 cc = 700 bhp 700 bhp = 522 kw 522 kw - 75 kw = 447 rwkw 600 cc = 600 bhp 600 bhp = 448 kw 448 kw - 75 kw = 373 rwkw 700 cc per minute = 42 litres per hour 42 litres per hour X 6 injectors = 240 litres per hour That's at 100% duty cycle (so don't add 15%) A standard R33GTR pump is 210 litres per hour at 12 volts and around 245 litres per hour at 13. 8 volts If the Nismo pump flows 25% more, that's 263 litres per hour at 12 volts and 306 litres per hour at 13.8 volts. There you go, your answer is in the numbers. cheers PS; I could have simply said 600 cc injectors and the Nismo pump will be fine, but now you know how to do the numbers yourself. As a smart guy once said, "give a guy a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for life".

When we say "MORE BALLS" we mean larger ones, not a greater number of little ones cheers