Sydneykid

My local Nissan dealer sells Nissan parts, like cambelts, idler pulleys etc. The RB25DET cambelt was ~$90, my bearings were in good condition. "N1" is a class of circuit racing, the Nissan N1 water pump was designed for use in circuit races for GTR's, ie; designed for constant high rpm. I wouldn't be using one on a road car:cheers:

The standard RB20DET wastegate actuator is 10psi, any boost controller (bleed valve or EBC) should be able to control 4 psi. My guess would be there is another issue, it ain't the boost controller.

I vote for 2530's for circuit work on an RB26.

Good job on the install, must have been tricky getting to the bottom bolt on the trans cooler standard bracket with the front mount there. The standard pipes were a bit of a pain, but I squeezed the hoses on without doing any bending. Yours is neeter though with the bent pipes and you have used less hose as well. Oh and nice horns, what brand are they? Are they loud? PS; not keen on the pink wiring though

For circuit work, between 1 and 2 degrees negative is the range we usually work in. For street I would be looking at 0.5 to 0.75 negative. For drag work I usually start at 0.5 to 0.75 positive, then it squats to 0, maybe 0.5 negative if necessary.

I do write the odd article for magazines, mostly on suspension. When I get time I might write some more, but just too busy righ now. Working out increased flow is pretty easy when you are comparing 2 (or more) intercoolers with the same internal and external construction. It is simply a matter of using their external core dimensions. There are 2 dimensions that are importand for flow. that is the thickness and the height. The thirds dimension, the width, is important for cooling, but longer width also adds a bit of restriction. The other consideration is end tank design and that can have a noticeable effect on flow. Since the 2 Nissan coolers have similar end tank design, I have ignored that in my estimates. The R34GTT intercooler is the same width as the Stagea intercooler so there is no additional restriction to take into account. Hence a simple look at the thickness and height will give a good indication of the flow potential. The R34GTT core is 80 mm thick and the Stagea's 65 mm, that's a 23% increase. The R34GTT core is 225 mm high and the Stagea's 180 mm, that's a 22% increase, This is confirmed by the number of tubes, being 18 versus 15, that's a 20% increase. Adding the thickness and height together gives a 45% increase in internal dimension of the tubes which is what determines how much airflow the core will pass. My rule of thumb is to bank on at least 50% of that, hence 23% (rounded). Now, I don't know whether that is correct, but it is most certainly conservative. It also pretty much corresponds with the power increase from 170 kw (Stagea) to the R34GTT power increase of 204 kw (20%). Since I have seen plenty of RB25DET's with 170 rwkw using the standard intercooler, I felt that I could add 23% to get the 210 rwkw (200 4wkw) that is my power target for the Stagea. I also have seen an R32GTST (RB20DET) make 215 rwkw using an R34GTT intercooler, it runs the same turbo (GCG ball bearing hi flow) as I am and it is tuned very well using a Power FC. That's probably better than I am going to achieve with the DFA, but I will have a dump advantage (split versus standard) and the VVT and the extra 500 cc's. Time will tell whether they balance out. Moving onto your question about the ARC intercooler......the difficulty is, I have no idea whether or not the core will have more internal restriction than the standard Nissan cores. I suspect it will, as the width is the limiting factor in cooling and ARC will have wanted to increase the cooling. But they are limited by space, hence the 250 mm width, which is a 19% increase compared to the 210 mm of the standard Nissan cores. I also have no idea of the relativities of the end tank design, so I will assume they are no worse than the Nissan design for this estimate. For the purposes of this calculation I will assume a linear increase in restriction in line with the increase in width. The important dimension is the thickness, 110 mm versus 65 mm, which is a 69% increase. Then we have the height increase, 220 mm versus 185 mm which is a 19% increase. So 69% + 19% = 88% X 50% = 44%. As discussed above, I need to factor that down by the increase in width so 44% X (100% - 19%) = 36%. The power potential calc is 170 rwkw + 36% = 230 rwkw. Based on that (somewhat conservative calc) I would say the ARC core will have sufficient flow to make at least 220 4wkw in a Stagea. The real hard bit is cooling potential and that depends very much on the efficiency of the turbo when producing 220 4wkw worth of airflow (~36 lbs of airflow per minute). If you choose a turbo with good efficiency at that airflow, then the cooling should be adequate, noting the 19% increase in width and the 69% increase in thickness. Maybe consider an intercooler spray for those hot Perth days. You may have read this post elsewhere The ARC is going to be good in 2, 3, and 4 and probably OK (not brilliant) in #1. Don't underestimate the importance of #4 whne choosing an intercooler. Last thing to mention is tuning, regardless of the intercooler design it is going to take very careful tuning to get 220 4wkw out of a Stagea. Make sure it gets the appropriate level of attention as you won't have much margin for error. Hope that made some sense:cheers: PS; Yes, I know I used an S1 Stagea as the basis of the calcs and you have an S2. But I don't think it matters, plus I have no real world experience stretching the R34GTT (Stagea S2) intercooler in an R34GTT (Stagea S2).

There are 3 very important words in that comparison, "I sell Wiseco". Tip #2 don't look at what WAS tested, look for what WASN'T. for example I would have though that hardness would be important in a piston, but no uniform hardness test results are shown. Perhaps they did test hardness and Wiseco came up not so good. After all if the Wiseco has the smallest tolerances and the lightest weight, then it is quite likely they are high silicone content and that introduces a number of hardness versus brittlenes and durability compromises. We don't sell pistons of any brand, but we use JE in RB's and we have never had a piston problem.

The rear of am R32GTR doesn't weight much more than the rear of an R32GTST, so we run a rear spring rate that is much the same ie ~250 lbs per inch. The front is around 12% heavier, so your estimate of 450 lbs per inch is a good place to start.

It's an interesting subject isn't it? If I was aiming for the 265rwkw (that we get at 1.4 bar from the R34GTT) out of the Stagea, I wouldn't be using an R34GTT intercooler. I have an R32 GTR intercooler on the shelf if the power target was that high. Since it is a much more modest 200 4wkw I won't be using anywhere near that boost level. I suspect that ~1 bar will probably be enough. The intercooler internal restriction is to airflow and the airflow for 200 4wkw is ~20% less than needed for 265rwkw. To answer your question, boost measured at the plenum is not going to tell us much, airflow is really the issue. I have seen 215 rwkw out of an RB20DET fitted with an R34GTT intercooler, so whatever boost is necessary to achieve 215 rwkw would seem to be OK. The GCG ball bearing hi flow seems to be very efficient from 1 bar to 1.6 bar, so there is plenty of scope. My methodology is going to be to start at 0.8 bar on the Stagea and increase boost until I reach 200 4wkw, then stop increasing the boost. Obviously I will monitor knock and modify A/F ratios as I go. My only worry is that I might run out of compromised adjustments (timing versus A/F ratio) using the DFA before I get to 200 rwkw. I will have the adjustable exhaust camshaft pulley on then, so I can use it to move the power around if necessary, even if I have to sacrifice a bit of max power to achieve a reasonable tuning balance. Hope that made sense:cheers:

What you are describing sounds like standard ECU rich and retard. One of the things I noticed when setting mine up was not just the max boost that set the ECU of into R&R, the rate of climb of the boost also triggered it. A hi flow turbo is going to have a more rapid boost climb (once on boost) than the standard turbo I have used so far. The rerouted vacuum hoses method has a very soft boost hit, because the wastegate sees boost pressure all of the time and it therefore is partially open prematurely. This may slow down the boost rise enough so the ECU doesn't work out that there is something wrong and go R&R. My suggestion would be to try a very gradual boost climb with the IEBC, but to do that you need a small (around 1 mm I would think) restrictor. Even at 100% solenoid opening you may not have enough restriction to open the wastegate enough and/or fast enough with a large hole in the restrictor. Soldering up the restrictor, are you using the standard one? Regardless of what you are soldering it has to be perfectly clean, it won't solder if it has any surface contamination. I find it helps if it is hot before I start soldering, so I heat it up in the oven first (or by using a gas cook top if you have one). And I don't have any metal in contact with it, as that takes away some of the heat from the soldering iron. I would start with a really small hole, say 0.4 mm and work your way up. It is a lot easier to drill a larger hole, than resolder if the hole is too big. Hope that helps:cheers:

The Blitz kit must be a return under/behind the intercooler style of pipework. It would be impossible for it to be any other design as they all need to have something cut. At the very least other pipework designs need the GTR stamped hole in the RHS innner guard to be cut out (same as a GTR has). You should be aware that there is a Apexi GT-spec intercooler kit that does the same, I have seen one on a R34GTT.

I have found that "spousal resistance" is lessened by gifts given randomly. The more expensive the gift, the lower the resistance.

I keep forgetting to post it up, the rear spring rate is 170 lbs per inch. As previously posted the front is 165 lbs per inch. Considering the weight carrying capacity of a waggon, that's not surprising.

Damn X and Y axis, always get those confused, hang on and I will repost it. Since it builds boost later I would expect to have to open the solenoid at a higher load point. But it might build boost faster, so you may have to steepen the solenoid opening over fewer load points.

Well .......... cams may not help, you may be maxing out the airflow of the 2530 at the boost that you are running. Also the efficiency of the other components (inlet, intercooler, dump, exhaust etc) and/or tuning may be the issue, not the cams. Post up the power graph with boost and A/F ratio traces and I might be able to help some more. My reasoning is due to the fact that our old RB20DET made good power to 8,250 rpm with the standard cams. It's all airflow related and cams weren't the weakest link.

It is ESSENTIAL that the wheel centres match the hubs, you can buy inserts (donuts) that fit into the rims if the centre hole is too big. Go to any decent tyre service and have them measure the hub and the wheel centre. It has been my experience that 99% of the time, running vibration is due to wheel balance or off centre wheel location on the hub. I have only found 1 or 2 cars that have had other causes, tailshaft out of balance or bent drive shaft/axle. And that is most unlikely on a Skyline, those components are very over engineered. Braking vibration is usually due to warped disks, but obviously you only get that when you put your foot on the brake pedal.

The only thing that you have done that I didn't was to set all load points to 100%. I started with them all at zero and then worked out where boost went over 0.5 bar, That was around load point 20. Here are my current settings for low and high boost, maybe just copy those and see what happens;

You can get the springs rates measured, most good suspension shops have a coil rate tester. Or if you tell me the wire diameter, the coil diameter and the number of coils I can work out the spring rate for you. Just post the dimensions up.

I have found a couple of the rear Bilsteins with tight alloy spring seats, the ones I fitted on the Stagea had to be lubed and hammered on. It was never a problem with the pressed steel lower spring seats that Bilstein used before the cast alloy ones. I haven't had to machine any so far though. I usually do the extra circlip grooves myself on the lathe, drives the race team machinist crazy 'cause I am so slow. Heasmans, the NSW Bilstein distributor, can do it for you, it costs around $10 per shock for an 3 extra grooves. I do them 8 mm appart.

Usually the Whiteline stabiliser bar upgrade for an R33GTR is 24 mm front and 22 mm rear. Is that what you are running? Since you are suffering throttle off oversteer, then softening the rear bar will help, as will adding a little more negative camber on the rear. A small amount of rear toe in, say 2mm per side, will also reduce the instability. Oh, I just had a thought, none of our cars have HICAS, it is the first thing I remove. Do you still have functioning HICAS on yours? If so that's the primary reason for the power off oversteer. HICAS is not your friend on the track or the road, loose it. Are you using the gearbox to slow the car as well or just brakes? This can cause instability in the rear, my suggestion is to try brakes only, then select the correct gear for the corner. Adjusting the spring seat height adjusts the weight carried by each wheel. I wouldn't ever recommend fixating on the front spring rate being too low, it may be that the rear spring rate is too high. The above adjustments will tell you if that is the case.

To remove, repair and replace an RB20DET 4wd for $2K is amazing, take it. I wouldn't do it for less than $4K. To remove, repair and replace an RB26DETT for $2K is amazing, take it. I wouldn't do it for less than $5K. Do a search on running in engines, there is plenty on it.

1. 1.0 mm 2. 8.8 to 1 3. 8.5 to 1 Combustion chamber volumes do vary, so treat the above as a guide only.

Pineapples, because they are flat round and yellow with a hole in the middle, like a slice of Golden Circle pineapple. Too much static camber means too little tyre in contact with the track, when you brake, the front gets even more camber (dynamic neg camber). When you accelerate, the rear gets more dynamic neg camber. You paid for 245 mm wide tyres, you might as well use every mm. We set camber by measure tyre temperatures at 3 points across the tread, inside middle and outside. If the inside is much hotter than the outside then we have too much negative camber. If the middle is much hotter than the outside and the inside, then we have too much tyre pressure. If the outside is hotter than the inside, then we don't have enough negative camber. Simple. You are installing new pads, what are the coefficients of friction? If you want more rear braking, go for a compound with higher CoF on the rear. You can buy brake bias adjusters, there are a large number of different brandss. There are however, only two basic designs, the mechanical leverage style that require individual master cylinders (one for front and one for rear). Or the hydraulic pressure limiting style, that can be used with a single master cylinder. I assume the R33GTR has ABS, which means you can turn and brake at the same time without fear of locking a wheel. What I generally suggest is to do say 80% of the braking in a straight line and the last say 20% as you are turning into the apex. This means the braking distances are shorter (you brake closer to the corner) and you still have some weight transfer onto the front which helps with the turn in. Plus you have the stabiliser bar working on holding the inside front wheel on the track to match the amount of dive on the outside front. This is the fastest way around a circuit and why you see F1 car and V8Supercars with the front inside tyre locked up on the way to the apex, when the driver makes a mistake and uses more than say 20% of the braking when turning. Daveo has already used the table with one short leg analogy. Here is one I preapred earlier... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What you are trying to do (with corner weighting) is to stop the table rocking diagonally. You can either lengthen the short leg or shorten the other diagonal legs. Either way it will stop the table from rocking. If you have a big pot of soup on one end of the table, moving it around won't stop the table from rocking. Getting the diagonals to total the same weight is what we are trying to do with corner weighting. So whether the car has 50/50 front to rear (or left to right) weight distribution is not something you can change with corner weighting. You simply want to get the diagonals to total the same weight. Our race GTST is 62% front and 38% rear and weighs a little over 1200 kgs. It has had all the usual stuff removed, spare wheel, jack, tool kit, boot carpet, rear seats, air con etc. Note that most of that stuff is from the rear of the car. Then I added a bigger engine, gearbox, oil cooler, FMIC, remote filter, extra 3 litres of oil in the sump, larger radiator, bigger front brake rotors, twin plate clutch etc. Most of that weight is in the front, so that's why it ends up at 62/38, it was around 59/41 standard. You have to physically move stuff to change the weight distribution (front to rear or left to right). This is why circuit race cars have lots of stuff moved from the front to the rear. Battery, dry sump tank, oil cooler pumps, filters, surge tanks (for fuel), brake fluid reservoires, etc etc. The big one is the engine itself, it's heavy, so moving it as much rearward in the engine bay as possible can be quite worthwhile. When you consider the driver is seated in the right hand side, you also need to make sure that there is as much weight moved to the left hand side in an attempt to compensate. So if I put the battery in the boot, I make sure it is on the left hand side. I see so many Skylines where the fuel system (pumps, filters, tanks) is on the right hand side of the boot. It may be easier to put it there, but it would be better for weight distribution if it was on the left hand side. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hope that answered your questions:cheers:

450 bhp =336 kw - 60rwkw (losses) = 276 rwkw The R34GTT makes 265 rwkw at 1.3 bar on our dyno using Optimax and it's not tuned too close to the edge. It gets driven every day in city traffic, rain, hail or shine and it is used on the circuit a few times a year and the drag strip (11.9 at 120 mph) very rarely. I have used Elf Turbo Max in it for a test and it made 291 rwkw with only ignition timing changes. Ken's R33GTST made 263 rwkw, Adrian's R33GTST made 267 rwkw, Dave's R34GTT made 271 rwkw...........there are a few more. If you are sticking with the standard internals, I can't think of another turbo that is as good for all round use.