Dale FZ1

The exact turbo specs you chose would be appreciated/enlightening. After viewing the Garrett catalogue, and then speaking with a Garrett distributor, it seems that there is a little confusion (for me at least) as to what is actually available. The information I received then was that the GT3071R was externally gated (???) which is not consistent with the Garrett cat. I was advised that they could build an internally gated unit, giving the required T3 turbine inlet flange not available with the GT28 series housing. I came away from the inquiry trying to establish whether the web-based Garrett cat. was more comprehensive than what he had in hard-copy, or whether there was a mix-up (me not fully understanding something), or a wind-up (him chasing more $$ on the basis of having to do a special build rather than sell a manufactured unit). Also the Garrett cat. seems to indicate that the GT3071R options are basically two different A/R turbine housings. I note some comment about "turbine stage" compatibility with GT2554, and GT2560. Am I now to interpret this as being that they will fit smaller turbine wheels from those units also? Is it by this means that they can provide such a wide power rating ability for the GT3071R ? Just looking to improve my understanding of these particular products and achieving a good match. cheers

No, it's at the top end of the scale - say 6200 - 6400 plus. Initially I thought the check engine light was for knock warning, until I checked the max values and did a forum search. Then I inspected the airflow and injector duty, realising they were at the top of their scales. Got to say I'm a little surprised at their limitations, but it makes sense to now do a dyno run even if only to establish a base to work from. Surely though, leaning off the fuel map won't pull duty cycle back that much? I would presume that a "safe" max duty cycle to aim for would be in the 85-90% range.

I've been monitoring the sensor outputs on my PFC hand controller after fitting to my s.1 R33 GTSt, and just trying to assess where it's all at before spending time/effort tuning. A couple of areas of uncertainty exist, even after doing the forum search: Injector duty cycle max value @ 98.9% AFM max output @ 5115 mV Knock level max @ 29 Mods are 3" full exhaust + split dump, std airbox, FMIC, std turbo + boost, std fuel pump, exhaust pyrometer. PFC is running unaltered maps at present, rev limiter set @ 6900rpm The car is running much more cleanly/responsive than with the std Nissan ECU, so it's been a good thing from the start. Cruise and full throttle exhaust temps are about +30-40 deg C (max @ 740, cruise @ 630), so it's evidently running slightly leaner to generate the extra heat. I haven't yet run a fuel consumption check. There is no audible knock, and forum search indicates this is well within safe limits. At full throttle, high rev/load the Check engine light does flash then go off immediately with a lift-off. My concerns are about the AFM + injectors seeming to be at the end of their capabilities even though running standard boost (@ higher airflows than standard). Is this the end of the road for those components before I lean on the engine further through tuning the PFC and/or aiming for a tad more boost @ 10psi? Is this the common experience when running these fairly typical RB25 mods? cheers

NSW is taking a lead role in trying to slow down the rate of deaths of young drivers, and for that they should be congratulated. The devil, Cameron, is always in the detail. Look at it this way: if you want performance at a young age, then get into a moderately powered car, and buy a kart to race for a few years until you're through the P years. Overall cost is very bearable, and you know when you're good - trophies tell the truth. cheers

I'm happy that my deductions about the std ECU were correct - it really means Nissan engineers defined fairly tight engine performance parameters, enforced by a fairly tamper-proof brain. I've gone down the PFC trail, but what degree of success could be expected with an intercepter (eg. Jaycar kit) that fools the ECU into accessing different parts of the factory maps? cheers

PFC plugged in with standard base maps immediately removed the flat spot - it did feel like ignition retard was the issue. Perhaps a significant reduction in pressure drop (vs. the std R33 cooler + piping, + exhaust) means the engine was ingesting enough air to make the std ECU go into a fail-safe, even though the actual boost pressure was unchanged?

Why would the FMIC be too big? They are essentially just a heat sink between the compressor and combustion chamber, so a larger heat shedding capacity = more reliable/greater power production. I must say that my R33 running a 600 x 300 x 76 did suffer the std ECU flat spot. Perhaps I'm missing something? cheers

I don't like kick starting old threads, but still feel it's a worthwhile question. It appears that the Datalogit software performs much the same as the Power FC Excel does. Does anyone have direct knowledge about their similarities/differences? Is there any difference in functionality? I understand that a PFC with the incorrect model handpiece will not allow FC Excel to run correctly. There does not seem to be much info about Datalogit in this regard. Comments?

I run a inlet air temp probe in the crossover pipe above the cam cover, and have also spent reasonable time working out the dynamics of heat absorption in the inlet piping. Main problem for heat soak occurs at low speeds (stop-start traffic conditions), and when running at consistently low throttle openings at low-moderate speeds (= low air flow). The major source of heat transfer is the hot air (@80 deg C) exiting the radiator onto the piping running across between engine and radiator (assuming you have that sort of setup), and secondly the heat rising from the engine itself. Once you are moving constantly over 80km/h, and/or running reasonable throttle settings, the whole system starts to work as designed, and you can see the temp reading dropping from about +30 deg over ambient to about +10deg over ambient. The lesson is in understanding how/why your car performs as it does if you engage in a run at the traffic lights. Insulation of my pipes did show a noticeable reduction of temp differential, to the extent of about 6-8 deg vs uninsulated. Most noticeable though was the difference in the rate of increase (takes longer to hit the max delta), and significant reduction in the whistling noises generated in the aluminium piping. For me, the noise cut was the biggest improvement from applying insulation. cheers

So there is a possibility that the ECU has a glitch? I accept that factory tuning will result in slight dips (impact of tuning around emissions requirements), but this is a major flattening out as described previously. Why would an essentially unlockable ECU develop a problem like this, assuming that it is the cause of my problem? Any others with like experiences? cheers

You have PM

After finally solving the coil-related misfire with a set of Splitfires, my test run revealed that there still remains a problem with the power delivery of my s1 R33. Previously running the original coils with insulating tape, I was aware of it, but put the sensation down to weak/inconsistent spark. The engine pulls quite strongly from off-idle to about 5000, before hitting a plateau (maybe even declining) up to 6000. At that point it takes off and willingly smacks into the 7200 limiter in the lower gears because it builds revs so fast. The flattening out of the power is something akin to hitting a massive ignition retard. There are no misfires, and the new coils seem to make the engine feel more lively everywhere but that 5-6000 band. Mods are 3" full exhaust + split dump, FMIC. Std ECU, std boost, std airbox, std platinum plugs 1.05mm gap. I initially suspected a weak fuel pump, but the way it zings once past the flat spot makes it seem unlikely. Ignition timing is unchecked, with the CAS returned to the factory sticker-locked position when I replaced the timing belt. Any ideas?

Just checking to see if I've got mine on file. If so they will be up soon. There was a bit of stuffing around required with an air saw, in the following areas: holes in LH & RH guards trimmed off/deleted lower mounting tag on washer bottle trimmed off 10mm approx from fan blades trimmed a lot of material on the std front bar girder (metal pressing that the outer bumper skin mounts to) trimmed some material from the front bumper skin deleted the std indicator assemblies from the bumper and did a bog/respray of the front bumper skin, used aftermarket LED indicators. The whole job took lots of time and patience, but ended looking pretty good. FWIW, mine is a S1, but the job should not be substantially different unless you have sourced an aftermarket bumper. cheers

cheers, makes more sense now. I assume that the load points are arbitrarily chosen by the software writer to give adequate resolution? ie. don't be worried so much about the absolute numbers, just the variation between them in the scale?

Yes, more input please!! It should be easily converted to an intelligible 3D graph, but the scales and parameters are not clear. cheers

Is this a constant-flow kit, or does it have a thermostat?

Quoting a useable fuel range doesn't give a measure of consumption or economy (depends how you calculate fuel use). JCMarshall_Law has the only reliable method for establishing fuel consumption, and it is the one I follow also. General use I experience is 8.4-9.0 km/l, with a best of 9.4km/l, and worst 5.5km/l. Stock boost, FMIC, full 3" exhaust with split dump. I don't drive like Miss Daisy, but do try to maximise the number of km between fills I enjoy behind the wheel. cheers

Dave you have identified a major drawback with relocating the air intake - especially if the stock under-guard shielding has been deleted. There is a lot of dust/dirt/mud/water going to be splashed around your intake, and winding back boost won't really reduce the type of catastrophic hydraulic engine failure that goes with poorly located/shielded intakes. As a guide, check out some of the WRC cars and the off-road 4WD style snorkels they run in events like Rally Africa. Other rallies where they have only minor creek crossings, they seem to use well placed splash guards. cheers

Looking at the Garrett catalogue, there does indeed seem to be a GT2871R with the same specs as GT-RS. This is evidently the case for the CHRA (complete assembly, less housings). One difference does seem evident though, and that is for an aparently equivalent spec, the HKS gear is rated at a higher output. Another difference that apparently will not allow a bolt-up fit is that it has a T25 flange vs the T3 that Nissan have evidently specified with the OEM gear. The other is whether the other bolt patterns for the compressor outlet and turbine dump are compatible with the OEM inlet and exhaust ducting or not. Is there anybody with knowledge about this issue? My thoughts are that the Garrett gear should (in theory) be well worth the look, provided they can offer the bolt-up fitment without further mods that the HKS product does. cheers

Thanks Discopotato03, likewise I've been away but meant to come back to this thread. I'm with you on the whole driveability issue - having an extra 20-25 kW through the mid range is (to me) more important than an extra 50 kW in the final 1500 rpm of the range. I have no interest in drag applications that seem to favour a rising torque curve (ie peaks near max revs) because they are useless in real world driving where "backup torque" and response are needed to deal with undulating terrain (hills) and traffic conditions without heaps of gear changes. Unless an owner is prepared to alter final drive or gearbox ratios ($$$) to deal with the rpm and lag associated with what I would term a "drag style" turbo match, then I reckon they've fooled themselves into a pissing contest they can't win. Basically, I believe a street focused modifier should be aiming to replicate the rpm zone where Nissan engineers sited the max power (valve train reliability issues pre-Neo RB25 ) and perhaps slightly lower for max torque (making it feel more lively when acclerating). It is interesting that other makes (Subaru & Mitsubishi) do this for their factory rally hot-ups. I've done a little homework on the Garrett turbos site, and followed the mathematics in sizing, and it does seem that you're onto a reasonable thing. My question is aimed at the ease of fitment - not sure if the Garrett product has the corrrect flange patterns for either the compressor or turbine to allow a straight-fit as the HKS product does. Sometimes the initial saving is pretty well negated when you have to get other gear changed to suit. I do believe SydneyKid's experiences are valuable, and probably the most prudent way to go, but I'm interested to see what may be needed to actually install an alternative to the GCG hi-flow, given that there MAY be a technical and practical advantage to the GT3071R.

Depending on the product, they can be between 10-21 working days.

Suggestion: pick up the phone and speak with the oil techs at Shell. They can give you some good advice whether you use their product or not. There are definite advantages to running full synthetic if you run at extreme load and revs for extended periods - much higher shear resistance and thermal stability than synthetic fortified blends. The downside is at least double the cost. Synthetic fortified blends are generally a good, cost effective product although a common view is that your oil change periods are shorter. At least it won't cost the earth if you want to do a quick change before/after a track day. Generally the lower viscosity (eg 0W40, 5W30) oils are recommended as a 'winter' brew if you operate in below freezing temps, or if the manufacturer (or engine builder) has used components that deal with oil of that spec. You might be aware of the troubles Holden had with their Gen III engines being serviced with 20W50 oil when Chev had engineered them to use the lower viscosity blend to reduce frictional losses (and improve efficiency). Evidently Holden's consumer research indicated that buyers perceived a 20W50 to be the "best" oil for their V8. Their own literature recommended oil of that specification, and ultimately resulted in a fair amount of warranty work to fix excessive oil consumption problems. I believe they have since changed the spec of the oil scraper rings on the pistons to fix this. The only other observation I've had is that engines run consistently at high revs/load (ie race engines that place high thermal loading on the oil) seem to run oil specs like the Castrol 10W60 you have found. This is generally a means of maintaining good oil pressure under those conditions. Bottom line: consider the actual use you are putting the car to, climate you are operating in, your servicing regime, and Nissan's recommendations. Specification of the oil should be more important than the brand, although I personally don't tend to jump across brands. Hope this helps, and any alternative opinions are welcome. cheers For

PFC + controller. Are there numbers on the ECU, and what price?

That is the nature of most gearboxes that are built strongly enough to take some grunt from anything other than a sub 2 litre econobox. Jump into a LandCruiser and you will quickly become acquainted with the difficulties of selecting 1st gear without matching revs to the road speed. Try blipping the throttle slightly to bring the revs up as you select 1st. Done right, you will get it to slide in. Generally you should find that either lighter weight gear oil and/or whether the gear sets are at a proper operating temperature.

Is there a link available to get the specs of a 3071 directly up against a GT-RS? Are there versions of the 3071 produced by both HKS and Garrett? Also is the 3071 a bolt-on proposition or is there work ($$) to get pipes and flanges to marry up? Discopotato03 do you consider the 3071 a street or drag-type match to the RB25? For my money I would want any turbo upgrade to keep a low boost threshold and progressive transition to full boost. Achieving a target power output is one part of the equation; driveability/useability is another. You've sparked my interest in them as a possible fitment, and the discussion to this point has opened questions that I would like to see progressed in this thread. cheers