Dale FZ1

It was entertaining and overall looked like things were well organised. Hope to have a run next time around.

Get onto the Vipec forum and see what people are using, if anything. Gives you a much wider group of people other than Skyline owners too. There's no real need IMO for what you want, except perhaps to monitor water temps for your own knowledge. Even that is well catered for with Vipec capable of being setup to pull timing if your temps go up. Checking injector duty cycle is something you can do by reviewing some data logs that you can do.

Have you got the half shafts?

I went through the same thing with my 48T GT2871 high flow. Even sourced an OP6 housing. And then went with a 3076. The torque drop you're experiencing beyond 6000 might have you thinking the car is slow, but I later came to realise mine was anything but slow. It was just fuss-free with heaps down low and mid range, and I had to drive it in its sweet zone to get the best from it. If the power number doesn't faze you, there might be an economical housing upgrade from the stock R33 to one of Hypergear's 0.63 jobs to fit your cartridge. Check what Stao's comments in this thread have been, and get in touch directly.

Mine holds peak torque dead flat from 3400-6900rpm with a 0.87 Pro S housing. Wouldn't expect any different with the Garrett housing. Rev limit is 7200, makes ~310rwkW. Required a bit of tweaking via the boost controller at the top end ie from 6200 and upwards to hold boost otherwise it did taper from 18 down to 16psi. This could be turbine housing or OEM manifold, or just what the combination does. Either way it is more than satisfactory and the chassis does not "need" any more power. It does need to be able to better use what it has got though. I'm running cast pistons, actual measured CR came in at 8.38:1 during assembly. It really doesn't want for bottom end torque with this spec. Part throttle and full throttle response under 3000rpm is very strong. I'm sure there are better setups around, and mine does like a drink so there is something to be taken from Adrian's comments about running a higher static CR (application and fuel type dependent, IMO)

Yes there is no doubt that E85 offers significant benefits, which was the basis of my question. Perhaps best answered by Trent - for a reasonably well sorted T67 25G (eg OMY31T or battery) running BP98 - what general benchmark have you seen or would you expect? E85 is not widely available in Qld so it's of interest. Understand your point of view on this one. I'm a little different, just looking at it from spending X dollars, and getting Y result. Redirecting dollars saved on turbocharger into a proper fabricated manifold and external gate is not silly, and something worth considering.

Yes. You may well find that the relative installed height of the turbo and the down-then-forward facing elbow/pipe will be pretty well aligned with the pipework where it runs through the bodywork. Nothing is ever "easy" but some jobs don't have to be that hard.

It does appear to be a pretty effective setup overall, and the dyno results at least are great. Looking at the results of the money spent, this particular turbo, manifold, and wastegate combination obviously flow well enough to make the numbers. I do wonder about transient response, away from dyno or drag strip (not intended as a negative comment). Difficult to dismiss, and my interest is how it would compare with either GT3076 or the BW offering if you started with a $3.5K budget and put it together. Given the widely reported improvements E85 brings, I would like to see how this setup performs on 98 pump fuel.

Have a good look at your engine bay, see what gear is running along the LHS chassis rail (eg aircon lines, power steer lines, charcoal cannister lines) and see what room that leaves you to play with. Presuming the compressor outlet is 50mm, I'd run the piping in that size for ease of packaging it all together, and then shoot the outlet downwards. It wouldn't be (very) hard to push over to link up with the intercooler hookup coming through the guard at that point. I hope you have a bit of clearance between that turbo and strut tower, the adaptor looks like it's pushed things over nearly 40mm which is quite a bit. Highly recommend some heat shielding to prevent frying the loom in that area. Good work, be great to hear/see the results of installation and running.

Any boost control issues have been related to the 0.63 turbine - but only when installed on a RB25 engine. You're going to need to stick some decent boost into a 20 if you want to head up/over the 250kW mark. It's a fairly straightforward process bolting a GT30 snail onto the manifold and doing water/oil lines. Smaller comp housing might not even require a spacer for clearances. Dump pipe to suit should be readily available, or even a secondhand one if you look around. It seems that the Kando units are getting good results on RB20s too, check a couple of posts and youtube links that Roy has posted up.

There is nothing inherently wrong with your plans/approach. A 30DET is just an alternative approach. Nothing more to say on that. Many of the same things that apply to building a 30 will apply for your 25. Head: have a competent cylinder head specialist check the casting for integrity/straightness. Just making sure it hasn't got hot at any point. The R32 spec head does have smaller inlet ports, no big issue with your goals. Not worth playing heavily with port work, but if you have the head disassembled and available funds then port matching both sides is worth it, and smooth/reduce the size of those lumps in the exhaust port outlets where the studs screw in. Keep it simple, no radical/expensive/time consuming work required but you have the opportunity. If you want cams, the smaller spec will be more than enough improvement. Ultimately the smallish GT-RS turbine will restrict the engine's capacity to keep making torque at higher rpm. Makes the larger cams pointless. New/uprated valve springs would be a good idea, Performance do a good product. Hydraulic lifters are simple but time consuming to disassemble and clean, but once done they become perfectly serviceable again. And if you need to replace one or two then it's much cheaper. Stock 25DE spec water pump, inspect/clean and reuse OEM oil pump with 1mm shim under the relief spring. Crank: inspect the drive collar already fitted to see if there is full engagement on the OEM pump. If so, it's just a clean and install. Pistons/rods: Good approach. Some advocate 9:1 or higher, up to you. If you have the time and gear available, weigh them individually and look to get the least variance in assembled/installed reciprocating bits. If you choose to install new rod bolts then it can become questionable whether to use OEM gear or just go to a set of brand new forged rods for nearly the same cost. Coatings - see comment about block. Not sure about durability of ceramic coatings on piston crowns. Fasteners: head studs overkill, contain costs just use new bolts straight from Nissan. Install new exhaust manifold studs throughout. Gaskets: a full rebuild gasket kit will include a head gasket, suggest a steel head gasket would be worth using. Belts: Bosch or Gates will do something suitable for cam drive. Don't forget your idler/tensioner. Competent bearing supply company can supply eg CBC. Block: overall reliability will be improved if you use a DET spec block with the oil squirters. Highly recommended but not essential. Drill out the oil returns (don't forget to do those in the head), and oil feed restricters are good. Brand name? Have your machinist check/install suitably sized MIG wire tips. Much cheaper, and works the same. Sump: the stock 25 sump has all the goodies it needs. Other: you need an oil cooler of some description. Your checklist is pretty comprehensive and generally shows there has been some thought about componentry. The performance objectives don't seem sky-high so the above is intended to spark some thought about gearing the purchases to match the output/performance level. Costs can run away. Make sure you have a competent machinist (much emphasis here), and pay a LOT of attention to clearances and cleanliness on assembly.

If you want to run a drain-back to sump from the catch can, be aware that crankcase pressure can work against your intended outcomes. Try installing a one-way valve (eg a PCV) in the drain-back hose. That would stop the crank from venting into the catch-can, but allow the contents of the can to run back when the crankcase is not trying to displace heaps of air either through piston movement or blowby. It may be worthwhile also looking at improving the screens hiding under the baffle plates in your cam covers, just give the oil some chance to drop out of suspension before the air is pushed into your catch can. Each engine will breathe differently according to build and application. ie some people will have to go to greater lengths to resolve issues. There are a few threads about that can help, with diagrams and/or pictures. Worth a search IMO.

Check that the cams haven't moved during belt reinstall process. One tooth out on the timing gears will make a massive difference. Surely the workshop that performed the work is looking to correct it? If so what is their diagnosis and fault finding plan?

Yes a 25 would be good, but the John Holmes factor is too big to ignore. It won't be less of a balanced package just because it has more torque. By using the R32 spec head you still end up with an easy build, sleeper appearance only the top of the engine is ~30mm taller than a short-stroke stocker. This is nothing really new, was done by Cubes a few years back to great effect. I think the posts have only been intended to open up your perspective to a different approach. It's never good to find yourself spending twice, but it's always great to see people having a go at their own build. At this stage you've got the most options available before committing. Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.

The cost of parts/machining will be no different between a 25 and a 30. Massive difference in torque delivery. Stick with a GT3037, more than adequate for the job. Question marks over clutch and gearbox are the only issues I would have. Keeping it simple gets it on the road sooner, I like the idea. He'd get away with using stock 25DE cams, stock oil pump and water pump. Big cost savings there alone and making it worth a second look. Cost out the head studs vs brand new genuine head bolts, and depending on if he's prepared to restrain rev limits and tune sensibly then stock 30 rods, rod bolts, and replacement spec cast 30E pistons would seal the deal and release funds to put in a DET spec gearbox and a clutch (depending on if there is already an upgraded unit installed) that can handle the torque. Massively different driving experience without overspecifying components or spending blowouts.

To be honest at the planned outputs a 3 inch dump will more than suffice. I've previously posted pics of my 3.5, works a treat but things are reasonably tight, and getting a spanner on to tighten everything while the engine is in the car was a mission. Smaller size won't compromise efficiency, and make life slightly easier. HKS produced a shell-like design much like the Sydney Opera House. Takes two bends to make one dump, and it works. with that housing/flange setup. Probably not worth deviating from that style.

Provided it is a GT30 Pro S housing, it should be a direct fit, and geared to match the turbine. Spool and total flow should surpass the modified Hitachi housing, so as a whole the thing should perform better than what you have. By how much is a difficult question, but it won't do as well as the high speed design GT3037R compressor. But there will be some dicking around (and costs) associated with making it work. Custom dump (HKS won't sell you one, and the Aust rep will talk to you as if you are a knuckle dragging fool for asking - happened to me), rework the front pipe to suit, and WG actuator bracket to suit. Poor scavenging and retained heat in combustion chambers due to inefficient turbine combinations can/does hurt power and reliability, so if you were looking at it as a whole then fine. But you'd have to look at the economics and benefits of changing the whole unit out before spending a cent. Interested to see how things go.

My parts listing has that CHRA available as cartridge only, with housings added per application. Critical turbine rotor dimensions are GT30, full size with exducer size 54.98mm. Same as a GT3037R. Compressor inducer dimension is shown as 57.15mm, vs 57.00mm for the 6/12 bladed GT3037R. So: same turbine, different compressor spec when compared with the GT3037R 56T That's what it looks like. Not the larger TO4S 0.7A/R.

I'd say you'll see a Qld based Celica there. Interested to know how your S13 compares to it.

Significant increase observed, from 9km/l to 7km/l. I'm sure both figures could have been improved, but under broadly similar conditions and driving patterns. That is not 100% highway cruise, involves about 5km of lower speed running either end to get in and out of town. Camshaft spec changed, and I believe the propensity for vastly improved turbocharger response via increased swept capacity means it swallows a lot more air down low, and needs to be fuelled accordingly. Both factors work against fuel economy, but I got the torque increase from off idle to 3000rpm that was being aimed for. HP generally costs fuel.

I was/am in agreement. Looking to highlight to Matt the common view/experiences by those who've done it that a gravel car is generally setup for a different brake bias, and hence driven differently. As you indicate, a little change can make a big difference, not saying he'd want it to be attempting to swap ends, just give the option of inducing that attitude when needed. The generally smoother roads used in Southern rallies should still allow the use of budget setup on a R32/33 ie. not make it necessary to chase high-end suspension. With a stock engine setup Matt would have similar straight line speed to a well developed (costs $$) L series. That Skyline chassis has a good brake package to work with (install a brake bias adjuster), and then it's a case of caging it, get out and run some smaller events to dip a toe in the water. And no, the Fat Lady is not a budget rally car. Results in Qld, and some good showings down at the Alpine and Southern Mountains shows what they (car and crew) are capable of. No turbocharged RB25 will give the sounds of that thing either.

Despite the apparent design shortcomings with weight distribution, I agree. Ignore any ideas about power, if it's got somewhere around 200rwhp (eg. pretty much stock output), decent legs at each corner and adjustable brake bias will give you what you need. The R31 mentioned previously is a fast gravel car point to point. The Rally Qld 2011 field included Dave Gaines 240K, and Richard Galley's 240Z. Both use 6 cylinder cast iron block L series engines, both potent (and well developed + driven)and both achieved great results. And you should hear them in the bush - pretty special even when there is a gaggle of BDA Escorts running.

Accepted rules for what works on paved surfaces changes when you get onto gravel. Rear brake bias compared to what a tarmac car likes/requires is where it's at to get balance. You tend to find the car is tipped into a corner much earlier, and the front describes a way different arc than on tarmac, a totally different line because of the oversteer into the corner. Disconcerting at first and then later when you're used to it, quite natural. Good approach to learning a bit about this would be try some khanacross events, and some rallies as a navigator too. Amazing what you can learn that way.

Horrible things.

The R31 has plenty of speed, and was built very robust. Set some cracking times in last weekend's Rally Qld. The Stanza that replaced it is a weapon though. Real secret on that one is the MCA suspension but SR20 and weight distribution helps it all come together.