simpletool

I've wrapped all the steel wool in 4 layers of stockings. Make sure you get the thicker quality stainless steel and wrap in a few layers of stockings (not the thin soapy pads).

I'd wager the OP could in fact be a Nissan insider posting for anonymous feedback from external markets. Wondering about impressions in Australia directly to his question. Is it perceived better than R34. There are a lot of half educated people off this forum who think so.

I can't think of a more variable output parameter than 400m times from a single input parameter (turbo). ie. That information would be virtually useless and stupidly variable. I've got an Apexi AX53B70 on my RB25. I don't think there are many/any turbos that are a closer spec to a GTRS than this. GTRS from all reports is slightly more responsive and makes slightly more power (but less peak midrange torque due to smaller housing). I think this kind of turbo with E85 would be the best street turbo available.

If those fronts are 9.5" you must be running some fat tyres, they don't look stretched at all. Looks like 235 width >> 8" wide? I'd guess 18 x 8 +30. The rears don't look 10" either. Plus what offset? They don't look wide yet they don't scrub on the inside?

Would these be a decent fit on a R32 GTST ? http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Rays-Volk-Racing-RE...=item1c16fb5935

mmm cheap and good. Rarely go together, but I find exotic exhaust at Jijaws St, Sumner Park has a nice blend of the two mutually exclusive qualities you are after. You'll need to book - and usually a week or 2 in advance.

IF you push the clutch in and it goes away then it 99.5% isn't the throw-out bearing. In fact the throw out bearing is what you ARE using when you push the clutch in. This has nothing to do with a problem in reverse (well it might be if you got the wrong type/height - but then it would be doing it the whole time, not just now or now and then , or only for reverse.) Anyway, have you driven many manual RWD drive cars before? ie. Is it just the fact that reverse can be a bit of a bitch in any chunky gearbox car? btw...sounds like a bearing race in the gearbox has be slightly crushed/deformed causing alignment issues and noise - BUT I am no gearbox expert. So take a grain of salt with this. mmm...salt.

Nobody had any problems with them? ie. snagging on suspension, sheared hose/fittings?

Nobody went for this? PM sent - also want a braided clutch line.

RB25DET NEO, reliable 300rwkw. A 3037 on an RB25 NEO would be lovely. Some injectors, AFM & nistune = done. (you have FMIC )

My car in Sydney now. Stock thermostat casual driving = 81/82°. "giving it the beans" = 85°. Aircon in traffic = 87° I have a larger radiator but new stock thermostat.

Again GT-SS is too small, well it will run ok, but won't make significant more power than stock R34 turbo. People comparing GTRS and 2835 I agree with, these are much more suitable. GTRS will probably cap out at 240rwkw (this is HEAVILY debated due to one or 2 cars getting more). 1 bar ~3100rpm. It is limited by it's exhaust wheel and housing being a bit small. 2835 prob cap out at 275rwkw, 1 bar ~3500rpm. Cropped turbine model in proper T3 footprint/T28 housing. The two turbos are a decent amount apart in inlet/outlet area. 2835 is 7% more area on the compressor and 21% more area on the turbine.

The kW rating is related to torque by the following formula: Torque Nm = kW x 9550 divided by rpm. You torque is the power at any point, divided by revs x 9550. Then you'll have to work out at the engine, which is about 20 to 25% extra. I'll guess with 11psi you have peak torque of (240/16)*26 = 390Nm

I cannot agree to disagree on an objective point. That is silly. I can agree to say we are arguing 2 different points. You are arguing what is the fastest accelerating point in a given gear. This we all agree with, it's at maximum torque. However maximising the area under the torque curve is as useful as redrawing a graph with a longer scale (ie. which would be like changing the final drive ratio). hey presto I accelerate faster! We ALL know this. This is your point. Yes, you are right. But if you had the same torque at higher revs, then you could have an even shorter drive ratio, and hey presto.....even faster!! This is basic. When it comes to the OP question of why are people hung up on power rather than torque. Well that has also been answered. More power is better, if it doesn't ruin flexibility. Having the same torque but spreading over a larger rev range is better. This isn't about torque, it's actually about power. My power drops off after 6000rpm (mostly because the tuner was too lazy to advance the timing above MBT). If I had of increased the timing to make a bit more high-end torque and got peak power at 6400rpm then I would have got more power. But it wouldn't be any faster below 6000rpm. It would just be a little bit faster between 6000rpm and 6400rpm. HOWEVER, I could reduce my gear ratio a bit, then I have more effective torque at the wheels but my engine torque has not changed and neither has my peak speed in each gear. I'm talking in circles here. I can't see how you could possibly disagree with what I am saying. OK, you win. I agree to disagree. Except I don't know what I am disagreeing with but I am tired and the donut deal below has got me. A war of attrition.

No, the power curve. Power....power....POWAHHHHHH. I have no idea what the area under the torque curve would equal...if anything in terms of physics?

It does answer it ..............in a way. But it gets a D- at best. The correct answer is: When the total area under the curve is highest. Get each gear, select shift point based on maximising total area for each gear taking note of effect of shift points on area for gear before and after. This would need to be done by iteration.

I'm not confused at all. Please fine a single thing I had said that is not true. Feel free to use at much maths as you wish. I'm still waiting for an answer to an extension of your hypothetical..... "why aren't you in a gear lower?" That questions is EXACTLY my point. You keep talking about absolute torque or power according to physics without ever looking at the real world, which includes MULTIPLE gears. If I wasn't at work literally trying to finished off selling scientific equipment to university professors I'd draw some graphs to prove you wrong mathematically with area throughout the gear range. You could even cut them out and weigh them...would that be proof enough?? Anyway.....back to teh question. Please be so polite as to answer it and give reason. So...Here's an hypothetical for you...an engine makes 100kw at 3000rpm, 200kw at 5000rpm and peak power of 205kw at 7000rpm...do you really think between 5000 and 7000rpm it is going to be accelerating any faster than between 3000 and 5000? Between 3000 and 5000 is where the major torque band is, hence the major increase in power and the most acceleration. After 5000 it is dropping off = hit a massive brick wall in acceleration, and it will actually accelerate slower than when the engine was between 3000 and 5000. Motorbikes are very good at demonstrating this due to their high revving nature as both peak torque, peak power, and redline are well spaced apart. Part A. Now...remember we are on a motorbike. You have 6 gears to choose from.......you can rev to 7000rpm, but you are running between 3000rpm and 5000rpm due to maximum torque being here.............why aren't you in a lower gear? Part B. Assume you are in 1st gear (so you cannot change to another gear)......where should you change gear.....bearing in mind that by changing up a gear you both drop into a lower point of the rev rang and de-multiply your torque (at the wheels) All this aside from the fact that this motorbike has some seriously unrealistic breathing issues up high.

A true hypothetical and yes it will accelerate faster at this point. But why aren't you a gear lower?

Torque is a force. Power is how the force acts over time. Faster revs = less time for the force to act. So you have 10000Nm, but it's acts over 20 minutes (ie. 0.05 rpm). Any good? No, it's not. It's slow, it's not powerful. How this acts OVER TIME is dependent upon gearing (amongst flywheel mass, etc). We all care about time, trust me, we care a lot. It's just that time marches on regardless some people do not care so much. After all it'll keep going on and on and on......well actually we could travel faster close to the speed of light and slow it down, or we could get deeply involved in complex thought experiments and time seems to speed up (dammit, always when we are having fun...sheeshh I'm such a geek). Anyway the point is that torque is simply a description that can be used to describe engine characteristics. As I said before people do understand it, but as an absolute number it means much less than power. Sure I disagreed a little before with Rolls about power vs torque understanding, but I was just playing Devil's advocate and the subject matter was a little subjective (people's apparent understanding of the implications of torque, etc etc). But now I disagree because that graph is flat out wrong (objectively). Again, lets look at yet ANOTHER scenario. Not punching....I've too tired after my workout of talking about punching...phew. Let's talk about the KERS system used by Porsche in the GT3 R. It uses a mass that is spinning at a very high rpm with very little torque. But it has a lot of power (albeit delivered electrically). But it is stored mechanically in a mass spinning with low torque at high rpm. Do they know that torque is more important than power? No they bloody don't because torque doesn't matter. The electrical circuit has been designed (like the gearing of a car) to take advantage of the high speed, low torque arrangement. Would it store more energy with lower speed and higher torque.....again....no it won't. Does the higher speed mean a lower percentage of frictional loss.....yeah....probably. If it had the same torque but at higher speed would it make more power...yes, yes, yes that is exactly how the system works! Is this relevant to the point above.....well...barely.

P.S. This is getting good.

No, I'm not wrong. We are talking about engine power and torque which is then factored by gearing. Not power or torque at the wheels (ie. not gearing effects, no spread between ratios) Also the statements on that graph are almost all incorrect. Statements like "power continues to be made but not at the same rate" is incorrect. Power is made at a GREATER rate, just not increasing at the same rate. Shift points comment is incorrect. Changing at 8000rpm would be SLOWER than changing at 8300rpm as you are going into the next gear at a lower RPM. Whoever wrote that doesn't actually know what they are talking about. Sorry. I will say the comment that the engine will accelerate quickest at peak torque is correct, but since we are talking about engines and not the wheels this is irrelevant for my previous point about CVT transmissions. These keep the engine at the same point and wheels accelerate, therefore changing the gearing ratio as they go. anyway this guy has already debunked all the above myths on that graph - see here: http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

Well Birds you are right and wrong. Peak torque is where an engine will accelerate fastest IN A GIVEN FIXED GEAR RATIO. If you use a CVT it will accelerate fastest at peak power. It's simply a limitation of the fixed gear ratios that peak torque is the maximum acceleration point in typical cars. As Rolls points out, power is really the only important (instantaneous) factor in acceleration. Everything else can be factored by gearing. Torque is accepted as a descriptor as it has been traditionally used (with power) to describe engine flexibility at midrange rev levels.

^ what Rolls said +1 HP is factored by gearing to make torque at the wheels. This is what matters. However this is only at a single instant - the ability to maximize this throughout the rev range used is also important. This would be area under the curve. Most people understand torque vs power already but I want to use a punching analogy. Torque is like how hard you can punch. Revs is how many times you can punch per second. Power is both put together. If you are a medium sized guy who can punch medium hard and medium fast you are quite handy. Probably just as handy as a large guy who punches hard but not as fast. And if you are a little guy who punches lightly, but very fast you would still be fine (as long as you can punch hard enough to stun). In the end you are all having the same effect, even though you punch with different strengths (torque). OK, maybe that didn't help anyone. But I like to talk about punching sometimes. ahh.....that's better.

Correct, and correct. Area under the curve would give energy for each gear would be the best (and very accurate) way to use those calculators.

Agree. Both Rolls and PM-R33 are not wrong. However PM-R33 is more correct. Torque at given rpm is important. People should understand torque simply because they have been exposed to comparative figures from manufacturers for ages. If you want to say people don't understand torque, then people don't understand power either. Since these two are related by revolutions per minute and gearing, to say people don't understand torque is to say people don't understand power. Indeed as you have stated quite correctly, they are proportionately related. To illustrate get a passenger in a RX8 (with 177kw), and then in a BA falcon (182kw) and asked them which has more power. Even with a huge weight penalty I bet my middle nut that most will say the falcon. People understand torque MORE than power in most cases. Although admittedly they are feeling the effects of power factored by gearing to create torque at the wheels. In any case it's still area under the curve, which is energy. Your gearing is how quickly you use this energy. This then gives the power/torque you feel.