rev210

Hi MR331307, Who are Hioctane? Do you mean the company over east? or some sort of mag? I initially did the torque steps because I took the cams off without a manual, so I was carefull and used a bit of logic to guestimate the sequence, kind of easy to do though. Then a friend let me have a look at the manual he had before I put the new cams in and I just decided there needed a few more steps.

If you have a fairly modified car, the porblem could be a little more complex by the way. I am just assuming you have a fairly standard gtst.

If it's under any kind of load a 'rattle' like marbles in a tin is our good chinese friend 'ping'. If it's a sound coming from the 'left side of the car thats consistant with Mr Ping. Mr Ping is visiting with his good friend 'Too much base timing'. Make a mark on your CAS to see where you started with a marker pen, losen the bolts so you can rotate it. Get out your trusty Timing light take a few degrees of base timing out at idle, tighten it back up and see if it fixes the noise. In the mean time DONT try to make that sound anymore. If it means not driving you car till you can do this then so be it. RB25's 9:1 compression doesn't make for forgiving ringlands under boost with ping. See how you go. It's not uncommon as an issue.

1/4 the price but, second hand. You need a new custom top feed injector fuel rail made up and probably a new fuel reg unless you incorporate the nissan factory one into the new rail. You will need new o rings for those injectors as well and perhaps new injector plugs wired into your harness (can't remember if they use the same connections). After that you do that you don't have any price advantage. as they say pick two : fast. cheap. reliable.

The cams are so long that they are very fragile when being torqued down. I blame the nissan torque steps being too few. I didn't trust them when I first un-torqued and then retorqued mine the first time and I had no issues. I threw in 3 extra steps in between to be sure. I think if you do enough of them (cam changes) you are likely to break some, especially when customers aren't willing to go for the extra expense of new bolts. Add to that big cams and beefy springs and it doesn't help. 90% of the time old bolts might work could be even higher as a percentage but, that still means you do enough and you get a few broken ones.

sometimes a little larger when going around a sharp turn helps the airflow. you sometimes see elbows in factory turbo cars that are larger diameter than the rest of the pipework. They usually have a reducer flexible pipe to attach to the smaller pipes on either side. The 2 1/4 or 2 1/2 inch is probably about right for the 260-280kw worth of airflow ( 240rwkw ). Like anything make sure you have as short a path as you can, try to avoid sharp bends in the pipework and where there are bends ensure they are well made (I guess most are these days).

Easy to break the cams. Even easier if your doing it on the cheap and didn't replace the cam retaining bolts/studs with new ones. Hopefully you did replace them because that new cam/s may let go (along with the motor) later on thanks to a fatigued old bolt that breaks. You dont have much lift on those cams so you might be lucky. Then again.....

Just to add some more info to the stock intercooler theory debate: To be fair my old Gtst had the ducting and free flow out the back of the factory unit, unlike probably everyone elses. I feel I could help replicate the results or perhaps better, if anyone wanted to have a go. This may show what ducting can do for an intercooler? *Torque isn't an issue, could you make more with a FMIC? don't know really, perhaps with a better intercooler core 'period' it should? - My old Gtst made 170rwkw at only 4800rpm 10-11psi. Limit of 4800 was due to an injector issue at 5,000rpm and above. - This run was done with the bonnet 'down' - The power figure was on the last run as we were fault finding, so heat soak didn't really hurt anything even though it was a hot day. I also had my turbo outlet pipe 'to intercooler' thermal wrapped along with the dump pipe. I also improved the factory turbo heat shields, added extra bits to them and futher insulated the internal part of them with thermal tape. Not that it does a hell of alot but, every little bit counts. Looking under the bonnet of my cars has never been much of a show. It would be nice to see a little more info on the R34 and how far it can go, we have an example or two from Sydneykid at the 220-230rwkw point but, a flow bench test (with all the pipes from turbo to throttle body) back to back with a popular FMIC kit would be interesting too.

JazzaR33, Fitting any kind of intercooler requires good ducting, if you want it to be most effective and efficient. Nismo make a duct for the GTR's intercooler, but ensuring the air continues into the radiator core by sealing the gaps between intercooler core edges and radiator is also part of the deal. You are quite right , reducing pipe volume and to some extent keeping pipe diameter to an optimum size and no bigger certainly does help. With the factory intercooler and removing a section at the front of the wheel well can be done very neatly, alternatively you can take it out all together. I did so on my old R33 and drove it many kms, some unsealed roads too and I can assure you there is no crap flung into the back of factory intercooler, so no worries about that which is good.

5.15 litres ! Cmon! DO IT! Forget these faggy half sized engine blocks

why not just grab a nissan TB48 engine and fit it with this? http://www.briancrower.com/makes/nissan/tb48.shtml More cubes!!!!!!!!

Thermal exhaust tape. DEI is what I tend to get because it has stitched in lines to get the wrap even on the exhaust. There are plenty of other brands though. Some have a turbo kit that includes some tape, clamps and a turbo beanie. Use the same thermal tape stuff for under bonnet pipes if you like. It doesn't look very pretty though.

Hi JazzaR33, The response intercooler thing becomes one of those he said she said things. Although it's not really, there is a scant amount of real data sitting around for us to have a squiz at. For the most part you will have a very small number of people with a little knowledge in race car prep telling you that the R34 intercooler has some benifits over a much bigger core on a GTST from the perspective of a shorter air path and lower total volume. Air gets to where it's going quick enough at the same time as recieving a nice efficient cool down. If you keep going bigger on a core size you eventually hit a point where getting bigger and bigger doesn't drop the temp any more, adds weight and so on. Rather than talk about 'what ifs' ,Sydneykid kindly added some info on the R34 intercooler some time ago it went along these lines comparing the very good core found in the GTR intercoolers; He found the R34GTT intercooler was around 68% efficient for cooling (thats very good) at ~200 rwkw. That compares pretty favourably with a standard R32GTR intercooler on the same engine which was 72% efficient at similar power levels. At 200 rwkw and 7,250 rpm, the R34GTT intercooler (and pipework) had 1.5 psi restriction at 1.3 bar. The R32GTR intercooler, with larger pipework and similar power, was 0.75 psi. So even the airflow wasn't too bad. So does the R34 intercooler drop the temp enough and provide an acceptable pressure drop at 220rwkw to make it a good little option? Yep. Here's the big BUT; BUT you need to ensure there is good ducting to the intercooler to make the most of its efficiency. On the stock intercooler/R34 that means making a hole in the dust cover inside the wheel arch behind the intercooler for the air to get out nicely (for the low pressure effect) and if you want to be really tricky making a flared duct.The sidemount has a great advantage in this respect. And ensuring the duct at the front is well made and is catching lots of good clean air and forcing it to go through the core. The same goes for any intercooler setup. It works so much better that way, so does your radiator if it's a front mount.

Abo Bob, the guys at ACPT are very helpful if you are serious they could give you some numbers. Afterall they are an areospace company. http://www.acpt.com/

Roy, Taking 8-10kg or so out of the rotational mass on the tailshaft will get you very close to the acceleration difference the 2530 provides over stock. Assuming it's around 35rwkw that the 2530 gains over stock. In another 2530 space there are plenty of GTRs running the very responsive twin 2530's however the Mine's car seems to stand out in terms of aceleration. Shin at prospec in the UK built his car around the Mines catalogue and understandably he raves about the carbon fibre shaft and the difference it makes to his own car, if you have that UK made GTR DVD Shin's car is used for the 'ring'. You can always have both you know.

oh and for the record the flywheel weight doesn't effect torque negatively when actually measured. On some types of dynos torque and power will come up a tad higher actually. For those who haven't seen something to indicate this I can put a dyno or two up if people think it helps to get over the myth?

scathing, You have the worst experience with a light flywheel I have ever heard of bar people who have been silly and lightened the factory cast flywheel and had it explode on them (hard to top that for a bad experience after all). regardless of low or high rpm a good lightweight flywheel results in faster acceleration times. This includes under load situations like going up a hill. There is enough good data to back this up so we don't get stuck on stopwatch inaccuracy and bad theory. I notice you have a 350Z? perhaps there are some other issues at play with your car? How are the spacings between the gears? Did you alter the wheels and tyres so as to effect ratio at all etc? did anything else get altered when changing the flywheel? It seems odd as the VQ35 doesn't lack torque when compared to the RB's it would be even more capable with flywheel weights around 4.8kg. Having a fair bit of experience in this space I am really interested in your situation and a little suspicious that there is something else going on. Could be a good thing for the old Z if we can work out what it might be on another thread.

do the slave cyl as well. The new Master will quite often lead to a quick demise of already old seals in the slave cyl.

You forgot this part tho' "....and if you don't want a V8 buy a gun and end it all!" I hope you weren't thinking small block V8 buddy. Because anything less than 426 cubic inches is a toy.

Thats ok. I was just oversensitive as I'm thinking about buying a Jensen Interceptor, British car with a 440cui Dodge big block.

No.To understand that one in a measured way refer to the Z06 example, that is under load in 4th just like going up a hill. The lighter flywheel is quicker. If you were in lower gears its faster again.

I have had a different experience to you, with plenty of other cars too. Interesting you say the economy has suffered however. I drove my old car (r33 gtst) a good few kms (work vehicle with log books) I was getting 10L/100km or better. I had the car 3 or so years and drove it a good 30,000kms a year or so. I checked this on the log book records I have and I didn't get any penalty of fuel eccomomy at all. In fact the fuel ecconomy is better afterwards but, I'm reluctant to say thats conclusive proof. Although it's probably better proof than anyone else probably has on this forum it's not really a dedicated test. I think you might have an issue with the kind of clutch pressure plate you are using. It was a 4.8kg Ogura flywheel, 8 puck ceramic sprung clutch plate and factory stock pressure plate for the record. I never had to rev the car any harder than stock to get off the line or start on a hill, it felt just as friendly as stock. 4.8kgs is not really so drastic with a 2.5L six. The problem most people have with lightweight flywheels and stalling the car is due to a nasty clutch setup installed at the same time. Usually the pressure plate is over the top in terms of being sprung too heavy causing a much reduced friction point. It becomes more an 'on' or 'off' proposition and means slipping the clutch without chatter means more revs. It may suprise people to know that the stock pressure plate force is more than enough to work with a fairly decent power increase when matched to a good friction plate. If you are suffering from an over developed left leg and you are driving around in a street car you have probably got the wrong clutch in there. If you do have a bit of power with this issue, twin and tripple plate clutches were made for you. The good ones are lovely to drive with (although some make a bit of a rattle noise).

err yes..well. Kind of like the stupid head concept those idiots at dodge/MOPAR came up with, the Hemi (short for hemispherical chamber head). Those idiots! Hang on thats the design the RB motors have! Noooooooo!

Hi not wanting to make things more complicated here but, just a small point of order on the tailshaft. The carbon fibre tail shaft is a 'Good Value' modification and one that can be done at any time. The performance increase is very significant. In this case where a person is aiming at response and a relatively low power street vehicle it makes very good sense. Going back to the earlier example of the Z06 I mentioned and adding a bit more info. On the same dyno. A 437rwhp / 376ftlb Z06 accelerated from 2,500rpm to 6500rpm (145mph) in 9 seconds with the factory flywheel /clutch setup. By losing 10kg of rotational mass the time dropped to only 8 seconds. Comparing this to the stockish Z06 ,on page 3 othis thread, shows us that a difference of 80rwhp accounts for a difference of 5 seconds when the heavy factory flywheels are in both cars. The difference drops to only 2 seconds when the stockish car has the lightweight kit installed. So it's close to an equivalent 36rwkw extra that the stockish Z06 has gained by dropping about 10kg of rotational mass. The added point is this is under full load in 4th. Lightening rotational mass has actually greater gains in lower gears. The benifit of going from 200rwkw on a tuned stock turbo to 236rwkw is big fat turbo upgrade territory in terms of acceleration. BUT: * You don't have extra lag that a larger turbo always has. * You acelerate faster off boost as well * You have better deceleration potential due to reduced inertia * Better fuel economy And so on... Now lets look at the real cost of the 'responsive' 230rwkw turbo upgrade. I need : HKS 2530 Turbo $2k Bigger fuel pump $300 Larger injectors $900 Oil lines/gaskets etc $300 A dyno retune $300 Total = $3,800 (granted if you are a miserly tight ass you can find things a touch cheaper here and there but, I didn't include someone fitting it for you which adds more to the total). Something to consider. The R34 side mount intercooler is a good choice upto 230rwkw by the way.

Rice-o-meter Are you getting too close to a car with a neon kit that might blind you OR a car with too many/large pointy wings that could have your eye out. Bulldust-o-meter is great for those conversations through the drivers window at the lights or carparks when people are telling you whats under the bonnet. Hotchick-o-meter is also popular for those young lads looking to do bog laps.