Sydneykid

Check out this thread, has most of what you need; http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...showtopic=73824 cheers

Not if the pipework is already of sufficient size and so does not have any restriction. It only helps when the pipework is too small. We are not talking about only power gains, we are talking about throttle response. The dreaded lag between when you put you foot down and when the engine accelerates. If there is more air between the throttle body and the engine then you have more lag, unless the increase in power = the increase in volume. Adding 50% to the volume means you need to add 50% to the power, and that simply didn't happen. So the throttle response MUST be worse. Think about it, you have a throttle body that is ~250 mm away from #1 and ~900 mm away from #6. To get away from that obvious issue is why Nissan equiped GTR's with multiple throttle bodies. If they could have saved that amount of money and achieved the same throttle response, I am sure they would have stuck a single throttle body on there. If you want to test the lag effect of pipework and intercoolers on throttle response, try running the pipework straight from the turbo into the plenum. You won't believe how fast the engine responds to every little tickle of the throttle. It isn't that complicated when you think about what it is that you are trying to achieve, and then spending the time, money and effort on something that will actually help in achieving that target. There are simply better/more effective ways to spend your ~$1500 than on a plenum upgrade. cheers

What the hell has fuel ecomomy got to do with throttle response? I believe the greater torque, but that's a static measurement not transient response. So you kept the same pipe diameter but shortened it. What if you have left it the same length and reduced the diameter? Same effect, up to the restriction limit of the pipework. I could argue that the pipework was too big in diameter and by shortening its length you simply covered up for the fact that is was too big. This is not "theory", it is simple mathematics. If there is more air between the turbo and the inlet valves, then it takes longer for that air to flow into the engine at the same power level. That means the throttle response is worse. Is the problem here that you haven't measured/compared the internal volume? So you have no idea what improvement you have made. In fact you may have gone backwards, you don't know because you haven't measured anything that will tell you whether you have or not. You have measured a number of other things, but not one of them actually tells you whether you have done the right thing or not. It may seem like I am picking on you personally, but I am not. I get this sort of statement from people all the time about front mounted plenums/throttle bodies. The engine makes more torque so therefore this mod is a good thing, but that is simply rubbish. It makes about as much sense as "the new plenum has removed restrictions and I got more boost". Nope, if you remove restrictions the boost goes down, not up. If you want to have a front mounted throttle body/big plenum because it looks good, that's a quite valid reason. But don't kid yourself that that it is going to give you more performance/better throttle response on an internally standard RB20/25. Spending the same amount of money on other parts (say cams) will give a higher hp per dollar result. On the bang for buck stakes, changing the inlet system on an internally standard RB20/25 is pretty poor value. cheers

Our race team fabricator made that one. Simon at Nizpro sells them retail. cheers

Just waiting on springs, I will check with Whiteline tomorrow for an ETA and let you know. Cheers

If you add up the items you will find the Group Buy is much cheaper than the Whiteline Works Package with the same items included. Plus I have chosen specific sizes of bars, shock valving and alignment settings that work together to give a total result. cheers

Not be me, I have proven exactly the opposite time after time. Even some simple primary school maths kills that arguement. How can removing 2 litres of volume from the (shorter) pipework and adding 3 litres to the plenum result in improved response? And that's assuming equal pipework diameter. The most important air volume for response is the amount between the throttle butterfly and the valve, ie the more air you put between the TB and the valve the worse the response. In fact this is more important for immediate response than the volume of air between the turbo and the TB. That's why GTR's have the TB's close to the valves. Think about the extra distance (volume of air) between #6 and the TB when you move it to the front. How can replacing 63 mm inlet pipework with 75/80 mm pipework result in improved throttle response? The volume of air inside the 80 mm pipework is 61% greater than the 63mm pipework. You don't get a 61% shorter inlet by having the throttle body at the front of the plenum. So you must have slower throttle response because there is more air in the inlet system in total. Until you have measured the internal volume of the complete inlet system (pipework, intercooler and plenum) and can prove it is less, then no one with any modicum of sense will believe that there is anything but a loss of response. Save you time, I have done it, about 2 years ago and published the results on this forum. So get out your calibrated container and measure the internal volume of the entire inlet system, apply the appropriate calculations and compare it with the above. It's the only way you are going to win me over, and anyone else who can add up. cheers

In a circuit racing environment I have found no reason to go over 8,000 rpm. They make plenty of power, that's why we use 3.1 litres, so we don't have to rev the beegeesus out of them. It's the same airflow as an RB26 at 9,600 rpm, assuming equal efficiency, and that isn't going to happen. cheers

Are they rods from Brad (Spool Imports)? If so, they are OK. The HKS 272 cams might be a little big, the T60 is going to build boost a bit early, with 3 litres of exhaust, for them. The Jun 264's with high lift would be my choice. cheers

Yes, about 20 or so 9,250 rpm is the highest so far That's with a billet crank girdle cheers

I know, I know...........but (there is always a but) We are up to around 30 X RB30DET's now and the ones that have standard rods and stayed below 475 bhp, 1.1 bar and 7,500 rpm have not had a problem. The ones that have exceeded 475bhp and/or 1.1 bar and/or 7,500 rpm have all had problems. The most common being big end bearings, the big end journals are no longer round and the little ends bearings are oval on the compression load. Maybe if you could make 600 bhp at 1.1 bar without reving them over 7,500 rpm it would be OK. cheers

I bought the Stagea to tow the race car and fill the back with the necessary stuff for a race weekend. Better than the Foulcan we had before, and the Stagea is a much better mobile spare parts bin. There are some bits that will fit the R32GTST if need be. cheers PS; it's none of your business how old I am

Can we make this thread a sticky, please. It seems to be a big help to the guys and it drops off the page very quickly. Thanks Cheers

Check the spherical bearings often, they wear out very fast. Good luck finding replacements, you usually have to buy new complete rods. cheers

My very first post had the R32GTST on it, the post that started this thread. cheers

All RB20DET and RB25DET turbos have ceramic turbines standard. The R34GTT (RB25DET Neo) also has a plastic compressor standard. cheers

They can download the relevant R32GTST software version from the Datalogit web site. cheers PS; makes me wonder how good the tuner is if they don't know that they can download the software.

One by one; 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. No 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Yes, but what head gasket? 7. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes, but not necessary though, what fuel pump? 10. Yes, but it will need to be tuned by someone who knows what they are doing. 11. Yes 12. Yes, very responsive 13. Yes, but it depends on the boost level 14. No idea, never heard of them 15. Would do better with some upgraded cams, get the boost down a little too What inlet/plenum are you using? If standard RB26DETT then that will be OK. Would do better with a ported cylinder head, help get the boost down a little at the same or higher airflow. Little bit more power and a lot less boost, that's the target, helps the engine live a little longer Personally I think you have a conrod power limiter, I have not seen standard RB30 rods live in a DOHC environment (higher rpm and faster acceleration than SOHC) much over 500 bhp (300 rwkw). Hope that was of some help cheers

Change the caster requirements to 7 degrees, hence my comment you have a serious problem. All else is pretty much the same. cheers

Looking at the caster readings I woulds say it's an R32GTR, if it's an R32GTST then it has some serious problems. Front 1. Caster They should be even, with slightly more on the LHS to stop the drift to the left caused by the road camber (there to make the rain water flow into the gutter). The +1.62 LHS is no where near enough, the RHS at +2.38 is also not enough. You should be looking at 5 degrees minimum, any less than that and GTR's understeer badly, they are reluctant to turn into corners and feel vague in a straight line. 2. Camber Around 1 degree negative is OK for a road car, having some adjustment would be handy for track use where 2.5 degrees is a good place to start. Having a little extra camber on the LHS 1.04 compared to the RHS 0.87 helsp a little bit with the drift to the left, but it also has the effect of wearing out the inside of LHS tyre. 3. Toe They have set toe out, which helps reduce the understeer, but 0.6/0.5 is hardly enough for the track. I would be looking at around 1 to 2mm of toe out each side. Rear 4. Camber Around 0.5 degree negative is OK for a road car, having some adjustment would be handy for track use where 1.0 to 1.5 degrees is a good place to start. The current different settings, LHS 1.83 and 1.01 RHS, is not a good idea, it will cause the power oversteer to be different in left and right hand corners. 5. Toe They have set toe out, which helps reduce the understeer. It looks like they have tried to compensate for the lack of LHS front caster by setting different toe on the rear (LHS +1.1 mm and RHS +0.6mm). Better to fix the caster problem on the front rather than add a band aid solution. For the track I would be looking at around 2 to 3mm of toe out each side as long as the rear it is not too nervous under brakes. The solutions; 1. Adjustable caster bushes 2. Adjustable front camber bushes 3. Use the standard toe adjuster 4. Adjustable rear camber bushes, if the standard rear camber adjusters are already at full adjustment 5. Use the standard toe adjuster Prices as per the R32GTR Group Buy http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...showtopic=87521 KCA332 Caster Kit $115.00 KCA348 Front Camber kit $272.00 KCA347 Rear Camber Kit $123.00 Add around $25 for freight Hope that was of some help cheers

Hi Brenden, I get a lot out of the forum and this is one way I can put some back. Plus I might get some more engineering work as the Group Buy is selling quite a few kits. Showing the potential for a properly engineered kit. I have designed this kit for primerily road use, it does quite well on the track (circuit and drag) and is much better than the standard stuff. The rear spring rate is not very stiff, doesn't need to be, so it works OK for launches (road and track). If you only go to the drags once or twice a year then this is best compromise, including the recommended settings. If you go a little more often (say 3 or 4 times a year) then there are a few alignment changes that will help. 1. Set the rear subframe alignment bushes for maximum squat. That's the small split bushes above the front mounts of the sub frame and the small (non split) bushes below the rear mounts of the sub frame. 2. Set the rear camber at posititive 0.25 degrees, the recommended setting is 0.5 degrees negative. This gives less dynamic negative camber when the rear squats on launch and thus increases the tyre contact patch. 3. Set the adjustable rear stabiliser bar on minimum stiffness, this limits any transfer of vertical forces from one rear wheel to the other. If you intend to go to the drags more than 10 times a year, or are serious about setting a time and don't mind compromising the road handling, then hang out a couple of weeks for the drag kit that I am currently working on. cheers

Hi Nick, the improvement from using the DBA slotted rotors, some decent pads and bleeding the brakes is quite a lot. I can easily outbrake (activate the ABS) with the standard wheels and good 225/50/16 tyres. Thats' with the suspension upgraded and proper alignment as well, so there is plenty of traction. I haven't tried it with the 17's and the super stickies, the tyres are still a bit new to abuse them. I was having some problem with brake fade when towing in stop start traffic. But that was the compliance pads and brake fluid, I haven't had any problems since the upgrade. I haven't felt in danger of hitting things like I did a couple of times previously. For $800 or so, it was well worth it. If the pad compound isn't up to it, I have a more aggressive, higher temperature and CoF option that I can try. I don't realy think I will need to upgrade the brakes anymore than that for my purposes. I simply can't justify the cost for what I use the Stagea for. An example, for a set of R33GTR callipers (not Brembos), a rebuild, slotted rotors, new brake hoses and decent pads I would be looking at $2K. I can easily spend that money on parts for the race car, that I know it needs. cheers PS; the height looked good at 340/330 mm but it was a bit low, scraping on some speed bumps (with the standard exhaust) and occasional bump stop hitting. Particularly in the rear with 200 kgs of load. So I have raised it up 8 mm (one circlip groove) front and rear, I have also backed off the front stabiliser bar a bit. I will try that for a week or so and see how it goes.

Yep, they are REAR subframe bushes, they are used to firm up and align the rear subframe. They don't go any where near the front suspension. That's the caster and front camber bushes. cheers

Some people have had problems reading/understanding the Whiteline instructions for the rear subframe bushes. Courtesy of Emanuel, I have numbered the bushes in the pictures and numbered the corresponding bushes in the Whiteline instructions. If you are lucky I have got them right, it is so much easier when I am actually doing it. Please do a quick check just to be sure. It's a bit hard to draw #3 as it goes above the sub frame, which you can't see in the picture. The bushes that go above the subframe have cuts in them. This is so you can slip them over the bolts/studs and don't have to remove the whole subframe to do it. Cheers

Simple, I have numbered the bushes in the pictures and numbered the bushes in the Whitleine instrcutions. If you are lucky I have got them right, it is so much easier when I am actually doing it. Please do a quick check just to be sure. It's a bit hard to draw #3 as it goes above the sub frame, which you can't see in the picture. The bushes that go above the subframe have cuts in them. This is so you can slip them over the bolts/studs and don't have to remove the whole subframe to do it. Cheers PS, I have copied this post into the Stagea Suspension thread, as that is where is really belongs for future reference.