Sydneykid

Tell them it weighs 1,700kgs and there are Stagea approved in NSW with towing capacity at 1,500 kgs with override brakes and 2,200kgs with electric brakes. OR Same as a current Foulcan Waggon.

Boost is irrelevant, the ECU knows the airflow via the AFM, it has protective mapping (Rich & Retard strategy) that kicks in whenever the airflow gets too high. As would happen if the wastegate actuator hose was busted on a standard car and the wastegate stayed closed. Which is the same as the normaly closed solenoid failing when using an IEBC. So Nissan has a system that will save your ass. PS; this can also apply to an aftermarket ECU (eg; Power FC) if you apply appropriate mapping.

Nope, it's not that simple any more. In most states it is the rated towing capacity of the towbar as specified by the towbar manufacturer. In addition there are towed weight versus vehicle weight requirements, but it varies depending on the braking system of the trailer being towed. The limit is usually the lower of the 2, ie; if you have a 1,700 kg towbar on a 1700 kg car you can't tow 1700 kgs unless the trailer has the appropriate braking system (eg; electric).

Have you thought of machining extra ciclip grooves and moving the lower spring seat upwards (refer Stagea Suspension thread). You will have to pay a lot of money for a set of height adjustable dampers that are anywhere near as good as Bilsteins. Alternativley you could buy a set of coil over adaptors (threaded sleeves, lower spring seat and lock ring) for the Bilsteins.

Boost is irrelevant, at 12 psi and 6,000 rpm it has the same airflow as 16 psi at ~5,150 rpm. The ECU (via its fuel map) uses the AFM to sense the airflow and squirt the right amount of fuel in for that airflow. Similarly for the ignition timing mapping. The ECU doesn't give a flying fark about the boost, after all boost is simply a measure of resistance to airflow:cheers:

Boost is irrelevant, its all about airflow and the AFM measures that.

The standard ECU prevents any damage:cheers:

30 MM front stabiliiser bar is way too big, I wouldn't go over 27mm adjustable for competition use and 24mm adjustable for road use.:chhers:

AFM's would have been a good guess, easy to check with a multimeter. Just compare the voltages. Doesn't sound like it though. Some stuff I have seen, that causes problems but doesn't always result in an error code; 1. Loose knock sensors, rattle around, give false knock readings, ECU goes R&R to save the engine from non existent pre-ignition damage. 2. Faulty water temp sensor, ECU thinks engine is still cold and runs rich. Should show up on the Consult 3. Faulty Lambda sensor, unlikely to cause this problem but simple to check. Should show up on the Consult 4. Faulty throttle position sensor, ECU thinks throttle is open more than it is, so slips in too much fuel. Should show up on the Consult. 5. Camshaft timing not correct, won't show up on Consult, you have to remove the cam pulley cover and check it. 6. Ignition timing, won't show up on Consult, you have to check it with a timing light. 7. Faulty injector (holding open), won't show up on Consult, you have to remove the plugs and check them, look for one that is noticeably richer than the others. 8 The hardest one is air leaks, more air going in via the AFM's than is actually going into the engine. ECU adds too much fuel for too little air. Hope that is of some use:cheers:

The reason the GTSR exhaust manifolds work is because they are tuned length. At their tuned rpm they extract (accelerate) the exhaust gas flow into the turbine. The pulse from one cylinder travels down the pipe and as it passes the collector it creates a partial vacuum for the next cylinder to fire into. I am sure if I thought about it long enough I could design the right length exhaust manifolds (two) for a GTR. All it would need is the firing order and the rpm. The volume of the pipe (length and/or diameter) determines the time (at the target rpm). The firing order is the tricky bit, 1-5-3-6-2-4. So it would need a long pipe from 1 and 3 and a short pipe from 2. And a long pipe from 4 and 6 and a short pipe from 5. Sounds just like the design of the standard GTR manifolds doesn't it?

Personally I can't see any reason to use a Djetro, I have seen an R33GTR make 1100 ps on a Power FC with 2 X Q45 AFM's, it also did an 8.5 at 165 mph. So having AFM's is not going to limit the speed and removing them adds all sorts of tuning complexities. If the car is going to be used on the road, then an AFM driven ECU will always give a far superior result per hour of tuning time spent. When we build a competition car only (zero road use) then we use a Motec or an Autronic. There are a large number of reasons why, data logging, resolution, anti lag, processor speed, launch control, NOS control, CDI linking, intercooler freeze, telemetry, local support, closed loop tuning, individual cylinder lambda, direct plug into dash/data logger etc etc. I am a big Power FC fan, but when it comes to pure competition I would always use a competition ECU.

Personally I prefer the factory exhaust manifold, the best I have seen on an RB20/25DET was the factory Group A R31GTSR. Now that's an exhaust manifold, all thick walled, equal volume, steel pipe that it is.

I need to clarify a few things...... 1. This is an R34GTR? 2. Zero mods, just boost up to 0.9 bar? 3. How many K's? 4. Did this suddenly happen? Or was it always a problem from when it arrived? It has been my experience that R34's have the most sophisticated of the RB ECU's, they have all sorts of comparison tables for determining problems and protecting the engine via the usual rich and retard mapping. It sounds to me like you have a dud sensor, the Consult interface should tell you which sensor is crook. PS; you don't have to use a 4wd dyno, just drop the front tailshaft and use a 2wd dyno.

R33GTR or R33GTST? What are you going to use the car for? Normal road tyres, or R's, or slicks? What tracks, if you are doing circuit work? Any drag at all? For circuit work we find using more than 200 lbs rears is only necessary on tracks where we run 450 lbs in the front. Philip Island being the highest spring rate we use. I can't imagine needing more than 200 lbs on the road and for drag use closer to 150 lbs is better for launch grip.

R33GTST caster rods are NOT the same as R32GTST caster rods, contact the supplier for a swap.

Yep, a smaller vent will mean lower duty cycles for the same boost or lower boost at the same duty cycles. I can't imagine driving my Stagea with less than 6-7psi, I would waste a heap of petrol because it would be flat out all the time.

I am not sure I understand the question. When standard our Stagea had 4-5 psi on the low setting and 6-7 psi on the high. When I fitted the IEBC, using the standard Stagea restrictor as a vent, it ran at 6-7 psi all the time. The 4-5 psi is the standard ECU limiting the power in 1st and 2nd via the standard solenoid. I don't really consider that"standard boost", I reckon that's 6-7 psi. Using a a larger vent won't help the gearchange bonus boost (as per the previous post) if the solenoid is closed and will only help marginally (if at all) when the solenoid is open.

Let's start with boost spikes, mine does the same and I knew it would before I started. I mentioned it in the first couple of posts. It's only logical, the IEBC gets its input from injector duty cycle, in an auto you don't lift your foot on gearchanges, hence no change in injector duty cycle. This means the IEBC holds the wastegate in the same position during the gear change. As soon as the gearchange is finished, the load changes, as does the injector duty cycle and the boost is corrected. It is noticeable in the upchange to 2nd, but not much at all in the upchange to 3rd and zero on the upchange to 4th. It doesn't worry me and I haven't noticed any flairing on the upchanges which would indicate it's an issue for the gearbox. Maybe with another 50 rwkw it will be, but by then I suspect an upgraded valve body will be necessary anyway and that will shorten the gearchange time as well. As for decaying boost levels, yep the standard turbo runs out of airflow. That's the great thing about the IEBC, you can close the wastegate litttle by little to compensate. I am down to 60% as well in the duty cycle. As for one way valves please read the previosu post.

I will have to have a a think about this suggestion, there must be an issue with doing it this way. Since JE was responsible for both the IEBC and the Autospeed (2 valve) boost controller. I have to wonder why he didn't use the same one way valve in the IEBC design as he obviously knows about it. Quickly thinking about it, the issue could be when you want to slightly close the wastegate (not completely close it). An example, I have to close down the wastegate (reduce the duty cycle) as the turbo starts to run out of airflow at progressively higher rpm. There is still boost in the solenoid input, so the one way valve won't open and the wastegate won't close down. The retained boost (between the solenoid and the wastegate actuator) will hold the wastegate open (too far) and the boost will progressively drop. The second issue (again after a quick think) could be the pulsing of the solenoid. A one way valve could mean that every pulse of the solenoid may well be felt by the wastegate actuator, this will quickly wear the diaphram. The small vent would remove the impact of the pulsing, as it vents off the surges of air as the solenoid pulses. The one way valve won't open (and vent the pulses) because the boost pressure is higher on the inlet side of the solenoid. Thinking even more about it, the crux of the problem (with using a one way valve) is on many occasions (when boost has to be vented) there is higher pressure on the inlet of the solenoid. So the one way valve won't open, to allow that necessary pressure to be released. I will have to think about it some more, if there is chance that it may work I could easily test it. There are a few cars I could borrow the one way valve off.

No more tricky than tuning a PFC, lots fewer load points offset by the DFA advancing while it is leaning (one change = 2 effects). I haven't found the ignition timing on its own affects the ECU R&R, except for its ability to increase airflow from more efficient running. It's the DFA that stops the R&R by reducing the AFM voltage that the ECU sees. You really have to do both at once if the amount of AFM voltage drop needed to get the A/F ratios right causes the ignition to be too far advanced and the engine pre-ignites. So you have to use the SITC to stop the pre-ignition, by retarding the ignition timing. If you don't have to correct this over advancing, then you can use the SITC to advance the ignition to a point just prior to pre-ignition. However it can develop into a go round if you are not careful and think about how much correction is required. The SITC was around $200, there is one on Ebay for $US199, which is top dollar at the moment. But as soon as the word spreads, I bet the price goes up, just like RB20DET wastegate actuators and R34GTT intercoolers.

Thanks Gav, post suitably amended:cheers:

When I read the fine print............... "This programmable ignition timing module used in conjunction with our high energy ignition module KC-5247 allows you to program timing of engines with points? Hall effect or reluctor distributors well as many other features." DISTRIBUTOR?? RB's don't have distributors :confused:

I have seen this a few times lately, mostly due to people using GTR front shocks in GTST's. They are shorter. Or placing the lower spring seat in the wrong circlip groove.

Unfortunately no, Silicon Chip haven't done one yet. I am hoping this will put some pressure on Julian to have a go.

A bit of an explanation as to how the SITC works. It intercepts the signal from the CAS and them applies a retard or advance into the signal it passes to the ECU. This means the SITC can trick the ECU into firing the plugs earlier or later. This is good for an auto as it doesn't interfere with the ignition retard and cut that the ECU applies on gearchanges. That's why the SITC is a far superior solution than the interceptors that sit between the ECU and the plugs. They really do cause problems to the smoothness of the changes and ultimately the life of the auto. The SITC has 5 load points, 800rpm, 2,400rpm, 4,000rpm, 5,600rpm and 7,200 rpm. With the usual excellent Apexi interpolation between the load points. I have no idea why, but Apexi in the SAFC, SITC and boost controllers have great algorithms working out the corrections between what seems like a small number of load points. The smoothness of an SAFC corrected A/F ratio trace is a prime example. The wiring diagram for the Stagea; Enough theory, the next sequence will be the fitting