Sydneykid

You rang? PM is best for detailed stuff. The problem with R33GTR Bilsteins is they were specified by the Japanese Bilstein agent, not the Bilstein engineers in Germany. Unfortunately this also applies to the PSS9 kit, but there are solutions. Cheers Gary

260 mm front, I don't think so? Standard (new) height is 375 mm front and 365 mm rear, settling 15 mm from standard is not unusual. Cheers Gary

Cheers Gary

No, the 4wd block and the 2wd block are different, so you can't bolt a 4wd sump onto a 2wd block. You need a Stagea 4wd RB25DET. Cheers Gary

Stageas have the RB25DET with 4wd. Cheers Gary

All RB26's have one of the two oil feeds from the block to the head closed off and the other has a flow restrictor around 2mm ID fitted. Cheers Gary

Did you measure the boost at WOT before the throttle body and found it was higher than the boost after the throttle body, hence proving that the throtte body was a restriction? I have, at 315 rwkw and guess what? The boost was the same, hence proving that a larger throtte body would have achieved nothing, except waste time and money. Cheers Gary

They need serious tightening, don't pussey around, grunt a bit. Cheers Gary

Ah, Lakeside one of my all time favourite tracks. The last time I raced there was 1981, the trophy is still on the shelf, needs polishing though. Shoot, I feel old just thinking about how long ago that was. Gotta get back there next year, it's on the list. Cheers Gary

PM me a list of what you need. Cheers Gary

More than your S14 will ever make. Cheers Gary

The two flex cars I have tried, both SAAB's, used 25% to 30% more E85 than 92, about 20% to 25% more than 98. So the same price for 92 and E85 would work out around the same cost per K. And slightly lower cost per K than 98, both for better performance. About 1/3rd of all undergrounds tanks are the older, uncoated style. They have to be replaced, regardless of E85, in the next 5 years to pass EPA requirements. The later under ground tanks (the other 2/3rds) are all coated. So I don't see that E85 is a big issue for the 2/3rds and the other 1/3rd has to do it anyway. That was the situation in 2005 when the audit was carried out by AAL. Obviously it's better (more coated tanks) now. Neither am I, but I do know that you could spend $40K on new multiple outlet, temperature and fuel density corrected, EFT enabled pumps. And they are being installed everyday in servos all over the place. If the volume is there then the money is, the trick is getting past the time of small volume, because there is no doubt that E85 will be mainstream in not too many years.In the electronic industry we are what would be called "Early Adopters" and as such we have to pay more for the priveledge of being first with the latest. Compared to what blue ray players and their DVD's cost, paying for E85 at 92 prices is not so bad. In car speak, people pay more for a Prius than an Echo, just for the sake of being seen green, we wouldn't be paying more for being green, just the same or even less if you talk 98. That's not so terrible after all. Cheers Gary

What fuel pressure? What boost? What RPM? It's a bit of a circle, as usual with cars. Smaller injector plus higher pressure = higher flow Until the fuel pump runs out of flow at that pressure Then bigger injectors at lower pressure works as the pump doesn't have to work as hard against that lower pressure That is further complicated when we add boost into the equation. Effective fuel pressure for the injectors + boost pressure = pressure that the pump must deliver. It is possible for one car to make 340 rwkw at 1 bar, but another car might take 2.5 bar to make 340 rwkw, this effects the fuel flow. Add to that the fact that a 340 at 1 bar engine can accommodate a wole lot more ignition timing and runs lower inlet temps, so it makes the 340 "easier" than the 340 at 2.5 bar engine. To further complicate it, the higher rpm the 340 is developed at the smaller time the injector has to be effectively open (ie; while the inlet valve is open). Should I mention tuning variations? Suffice to say there are still quite few arguments going on about what A/F ratios to use for the best from E85. Keeping the above factors in mind I couldn't give an absolute yes or no, hence why "350 rwkw on E85 should be possible". Most certainly not guaranteed and very much depending on lots of factors. Cheers Gary

This is very interesting. Around $40K is what it would cost these days to install a complete new underground tank of around 10,000 litres based on what I heard around the servos a few years back when 98 was introduced. Some had to have an extra tank and pumps installed so they could sell 92, 95 and 98. I can't see how it would be necessary to spend $40K to upgrade an existing tank for E85, a water filter and control valve would be a few hundered dollars and most. Recalibrating the existing pumps is a no brainer, lucky to cost $500 to do it. My thoughts are that anyone quoting $40K is talking about installing a brand new tank, not upgrading an existing one. That's were the volume comes into play, obviously Rozelle had enough volume to justify the extra tank hence the $40K, or maybe CSR subsidised the tank. Once Holden introduces the E85 Commodore I suspect that the volume will be there for new tanks to be installed. Until then the only viable option would be for servos to convert existing tanks to E85. That means losing one other variety of fuel that they currently sell. That's still a volume question, will they sell more E85 than the current fue lthat is in that tank. Right now my guess would be no, there simply isn't the volume of E85 users. But there is another alternative, instead of making only 1 or 2 cents per litre from the current E85 cost of 99 cents per litre, how about they charge the same as unleaded 92, that's $1.10 to $1.30 depending on the day of the week. Now that's 11 to 31 cents profit per litre, hence paying for the $40K tank with around 2,000 tank fills. I for one wouldn't mind paying 92 ron prices for 105 ron fuel. The truth is I would save the difference by not having to drive to Rozelle or Lansdown. Plus it's cheaper than buying E85 in drums which some guys do now. Food for thought? Cheers Gary

If that's 13B turbo 555's they actually flow 565 to 570 cc's at 34 psi. My standard FPR was 38 psi, so they were actually flowing 580 cc's. For the R33GTST I bumped that up to 3 bar, 44 psi, with a Nismo AFPR and they now flow more than 650 cc's plus the atomisation looks better on the flow tester. So 350 rwkw on E85 should be possible. Cheers Gary

The NSW RTA computer system has the engine number and the chassis number it came from linked. It's mostly for use with stolen cars and sold off parts, hence the engine number linking. But they do use the same database for determining the age of the engine based on the chassis number it came from and when it was first registered. Punch in an RB30 engine number from a Skyline or Commodore and up comes the chassis number it was in and when it was first registered. The data is shared amongst the states, it was part of the push to stop the practise of stolen car rebirthing interstate. What other states do I have no idea. I do know a lot of SA guys that get their modified cars registered in Vic to avoid the Nazis. There is no difference in RB30E and RB30ET blocks, the compression ratio difference is in the pistons. We know that, but the Nazis are too stupid to bother checking the facts. Cheers Gary

That alone won't do anything to overcome the lag and the poor throttle response. Retuning it for the lower boost and sticking some more ignition timing into it will help though. I use MT ET's for the drags, but I wouldn't use them on the street, they are just plain terrible for cornering. Just for interest the 450 bhp Skyline is faster than 600 bhp VE Commodore, because the barge weighs 450 kgs more. Cheers Gary

It's curable, just needs a bit of time spent on it. Time consuming yes, but not hard, just work through the processes. It may need a little less brake bias to the rear, but that's also easy to fix. But first we fix the bump steer. Cheers Gary

The steering rack location has been significantly altered. Cheers Gary

It's certainly different from State to State, the rules are different not to mention the interpretations, especially the Nazis from SA. They don't even follow the ADR's and they're National, supposedly anyway. New blocks get stamped with old engine numbers everyday, it's not at all unusual. Unfortunately another one of those State differences, in NSW you can't simple stick a 1986 model engine into, say, a 1993 model car. They know the date of manufacture from the engine number, much easier for Commodore RB30's as they weren't available after 1989. No chance of sneaking one of those into a 1993 model. Even if all you are changing is the block, that's where the engine number is and so it is still a problem. Sure it's always better to get the car engineered, but sometimes it simply not possible by the letter of the law. Plus some guys change their car so often that they would spend half their time and half their money with the engineer. Legally we should get our cars re-engineered everytime we tune them, how many people do that? On that subject, I know E85 has the engineers around here flumoxed, you can now take an engine that previously had no chance of passing EPA requirements, tune it on E85, use a simple cat and it passes easily. Makes a mockery of the "old" engine in "new" car rule, not that it had much credence anyway. Cheers Gary

Mine work very well in that location, consistent results when compared to the knock amp and headphones. Cheers Gary

Depends on the spring rates. It's pretty simple maths actually; tyre + effective spring rate = total rate (where the tread meets the road) low profile tyre = high rate high rate + high rate = no traction Cheers Gary

It has rear toe in, plenty in fact. My guess is it has so much bump steer at the front it is unstable under brakes and sawing away at the steering wheel correcting the bump steer is unsettling the rear end. Cheers Gary

Nice example but the explanation can be as simple as 2 words, different conditions. My recollection is that MK's day was sunny with cool air temps, ideal for a fast time. I would also add that MK spent almost a whole day getting to that time, the other two had other engagements and couldn't spend the same amount of time practising in an unfamiliar car on an unfamiliar track. Obviously none of these factors apply to the 'Ring times, if the weather isn't perfect they come back tomorrow and the drivers are most certainly familiar with the car and track. You make a good point, one that I happen to agree with, but the example is not a good one. Cheers Gary

Yet another story of going for the power upgrade before thinking about how you are going to be able to use it. The answer is in simple steps; Decent tyres Check the weight of the wheels, heavy wheels make it difficult for the suspension to control the excess weight Decent shock absorbers, stay away from the junk "coil overs". Proper alignment, done by a suspension specialist, not the local tyre shop, using aftermarket parts because there isn't enough adjustment standard Cheers Gary