mad082

yes they are different. ethanol burns with more energy, and has a higher octane rating

have to agree with tony (i can't believe i just said that. going to go and scrub myself with bleach). love the datto's. them things is damn near bullet proof when it comes to reliability, LOL oh and i could feel my brains turning to mush and dribbling out my ears until tits were posted (then something else started dribbling, LOL). then this thread became tollerable again, LOL

someone should tell him that big exhaust tips give you an extra 2000 jiggawatts

repost....... you aren't that far behind though http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Fixed-t288511.html

ok, i think you missunderstood what i meant with all my examples of taking off in second gear. what i was meaning was that going to a taller diff ratio will mean that taking off in first gear may be like taking off in second gear with your current ratio. so it will be easier to stall, require more riding of the clutch and more throttle. it will make make taking off up hill harder, and put more stress on the clutch. as far as both power and torque goes, your current setup is far from a torque monster, because you could be squeezing 300hp out of your setup and still have a higher max torque rpm than the sort of cars that run these gears stock. and even with the new turbo, you aren't really going to be gaining anything down low as most of the speed limits are at rpms where you aren't really on boost. and it is at those rpms where turbo cars are lacking in torque and big, slow aussies 6's and 8's will idle along easily without any problems at all. i had around 285hp in my r33 with the stock turbo (was running 14psi) and i have also driven a mates r33 that had 330hp with a 3076 turbo. below 3000rpm neither car was as quick as any aussie 6 i have driven. i think that going to the auto gear ratios is going to ruin the highway drivability of the car as everytime you came to a hill you would have to drop back a gear. also it will make reverse gear faster too. also, after doing a bit of research, the 3.5 gears are out of a natro rb25, which have more low down torque than a turbo. the turbo has more torque overall, but at low rpm the natro will pull away from a turbo without any problems. i used to have a 180sx with a turbo sr20, and the missus has a SSS pulsar with a natro sr20. out of slow corners from around 1500/2000rpm the pulsar would pull away like i was standing still. it wasn't until about 4000rpm that i would actually start making ground back. the difference between an natro and turbo rb25 will be less, but there will still be a big difference. also the fact that the auto can allow the engine to rev higher than what the gearbox is, so if it is going up hill and you put your foot down it can increase the engine speed without increasing the vehicle speed. and i just did some calculation of your new rpms for the major speeds. they may be a little bit out, but will still give you the difference to what the new gears will be like 100kmh in 5th: currently approx 2500rpm. with 3.5 diff: approx 2200rpm 100kmh in 4th: currently approx 3400rpm, with 3.5 diff: approx 3000rpm 80kmh in 5th: currently approx 2000rpm, with 3.5 diff: approx 1750rpm 80kmh in 4th: currently approx 2700rpm, with 3.5 diff: approx 2350rpm 60kmh in 4th: currently approx 2000rpm, with 3.5 diff: approx 1700rpm 60kmh in 3rd: currently approx 2600rpm, with 3.5 diff: approx 2200rpm and finally, with teh 3.5 diff being an open diff will make it terrible when you do happen to put the bigger turbo on. it will be whelspin city, especially in the wet. however you wouldn't have to worry too much about losing it in the wet because it would only be 1 wheel spinning, LOL if i was you i would be putting the 1.5 way into your current housing.

the stock o2 sensor isn't a wideband sensor. it is only designed to read between 14 and 15:1 and send the ecu a signal of either lean or rich. anything leaner than 15:1 it says rich, anything richer than 14:1 is says rich and in between is stoich. they ecu doesn't actually monitor the exact AFR. it may possibly be that the stock o2 sensor is dead and that is why you are getting shocking economy, or the closed loop tune may be innacurate, or not even activating, however then it should just run on the same map as wide open throttle. i would be leaning more towards the tune than the o2 sensor.

that is a pretty big jump in ratios. the diff ratios are on the nissan ID plate. i can't remember where but somewhere it will say either 411 or 433 (or it might just be 41 and 43). if you get a pic i could tell you. if you have the 4.3 then i would only go to 4.11, if you have the 4.11 then i don't know if i go as tall as 3.5 if i was you. you are right in saying that you will reduce acceleration (be like taking off in second gear instead of first). it will give you a higher theoretical top speed, however it may actually lower your top speed (will explain more about this in a second). however it won't make you need to change gears more often like you said. in some aspects it will, but won't in others. you will have a higher top speed in each gear, so when accelerating you will have to change gears less often. however if you drive around hilly areas you may be changing gears more often due to the lower torque. but that really depends on your gear selection to start with. also acceleration will be slower because at lower rpm you will be spending more time off boost. so if you are cruising along and put your foot down it will take longer for you to get into the peak section of the rev range. this can affect how often you have to change gears. now more about the higher top speed. if you have plenty of power then your top speed will be higher with the lower diff ratio. however if you don't have that much power then your top speed will be lowered because the gearing is too tall for the engine to push. it is similar to if you are going up a steep hill in top gear at 60kmh. you may get to a certain speed where it can't push any more and you stay at that speed, but then if you drop down a gear you can go faster. the same goes with changing gear ratios. fuel economy is a bit of a tough one to say how it will affect it. on the highway you may use more fuel or you may not. it just depends on how much it alters things. it may make it too tall to use 5th gear unless you are doing 140kmh or more. so you may end up using 4th gear and having it rev a touch higher than what it used to rev in 5th gear. or 5th gear may still be usable but you have to use a higher throttle percentage than the shorter gearing. for round town driving you will probably use a touch more fuel as you will have to use more throttle to launch without stalling etc. it really does depend on how much it changes things. as much as i like the RB motors, they aren't exactly a torque monster in the low rpm range, which is why nissan gave them such a short ratio to start with when compared to the big aussie sixes which run ratios around the low 3s. if you were to put 4.11's into a commodore or falcon then economy would go out the window because they are very tall geared to start with, and are designed to rev at under 2000rpm at 100kmh and have the torque to do so. to give you a better idea of this, an manual commodore v6 will do close to 110kmh in second gear at 5500rpm. a turbo skyline will do a similar speed in second gear, but with another 2000rpm. another thing to consider is that a vt commodore is making it's peak torque of 304nm at 3600nm, while a r33 only makes 294nm but at 4800nm. so it makes less torque and doesn't make it until not far from the redline on the bigger car. or to even more make the point, an au falcon makes 357nm at only 3000rpm. as you said, going taller gearing will give you better traction. the example of trying to launch in second gear is a good example of this as well. i really don't think you are going to get better fuel economy with the shorter gearing, especially with such a big jump. as i said, the rb motors really don't have enough torque to pull it off. they are designed to rev and will get the economy from using low throttle percentage. i think you would need to take into account what sort of engines they were talking about on the site you read the info in your second post from. if they were talking about big cube engines then you can't compare that to a small cube engine.

no i'm pretty sure i do, LOL umm, you could just walk up and look through the window..... or if it's driving past then listen for a gear change

yeah i agree with the looks growing on me as well. the sedan not so much, but the hatch definately is.

ok, for those not understanding the 3.9L argument, the rotor has 3 sides to it, so it fires 3 times for i full rotation. the 13b has 2 rotors so it fires 6 times. mazda worked out the engine size using the size of the combustion chamber then multiplied it by the number of rotors. however the flaw in this is that they have calculated it as if only 1 side of the rotor is firing per rotation, not all 3. basically it is the same as saying that a 5.0L v8 is only 1.25L because it has 2 banks of cylinders and the cylinder size of a cylinder is 625cc. so 2 x 625 = 1250cc or 1.25L

well then you are still a twat for putting the badge off a new car onto an old car.

oh and the reason why your mate can't keep up once you come on boost is because the 200m is already over and he has beaten you so he has backed off. or he only has 4 spark plugs connected. rb20's are by no means fast even with a bigger turbo. they might beat a v6 commodore, but a 355 running properly shouldn't have too much beating a rb20 with a rb25 turbo on the stock ecu on 10psi

wow, you can hit 112mph after 200m? in a rb20 powered car with stock ecu and just a rb25 turbo? that must be the most powerful rb20 in the cosmos, because i've been in a r32 with a pfc and bigger turbo and it was only just able to crack 100mph over 400m, so the fact that you can be doing 20kmh faster after 200m less is fantastic. what sort of flux capacitor do you have? and where do you have your mr fusion mounted?

if you look at the 2 stroke aspect of things and take it into account (where at 3000rpm it is effectively firing the as many times per minute as a 4 stroke at 6000rpm) the power they put out isn't so amazing. it still isn't bad, but it isn't anything spectacular as it is lower than a same year model ford or commodore (when comparing NA to NA or turbo to turbo) but in the cars that they are in they perform well.

as has been said, it's from the aircon and is perfectly normal. if it was hot and green then you can start to worry

i don't mind the top eyelids, but the bottom ones are overkill IMO

then you need to lay off the drugs

explain more about using a ps2 as a PVR?

how do you know that the car didn't just break down, and the owner hopped out and then got hit by a car and is lying in hospital right now but plans to go collect the car as soon as he is able? that is why it is stealing

i don't mind the mesh. i actually think it looks tacky without mesh and just a big hole. and at the front of the bonnet the mesh hides the white radiator support and bonnet latch.

drive to autobarn/repco, etc, when you get there, pop the boot, pull out the bulb and walk in and say "i need one of these...." and hand over the bulb. or if you aren't mechanically minded at all, walk in and tell them that you have a blown brake light and have them come and look for you

sounds like you have an issue with your timing light

the point he is making though, is that you don't compare a 2L turbo to a 2L NA. who gives a flying f**k if mazda lied or not about the 787. the point you are making about the capacity is pretty much the same as every v8 owner makes when talking to a turbo import owner. it's pointless. they are 2 totally different things. but at the end of the day, it is still pointless. sure the rotary might be underpowered and very low on torque for a 3.9L engine, but it still works well as a race car. and to compare it is also stupid. why not compare the power output of the 3.6L boxer engine from a gt2 and the 4.0L engine from an xr6t and say that it is crap because it makes 150kw less despite having 400cc more. hell you could even compare the beloved vg38 from the r35 and motor from the GT2. the porsche motor os 200cc smaller yet puts out 30kw more and 92Nm more torque, and doesn't need to be serviced as often. my point is, you can't just simply compare 2 motors and say 1 is shit and 1 is good just because you happen to like 1 more than the other.

sure a rotor isn't as small as an inline 4 to be used in fwd, but a 3.8L v6 isn't as small as an inline 4, yet mitsubishi used them in the 380. also didn't stop pontiac putting a 5.3L v8 in the grand prix gxp (also the chevy impala SS) and it's also fwd. then there is the host of fwd v8's that cadillac has made over the years. but then they did have massive bonnets. but the new impallas, etc, don't have massively huge bonnets to fit the v8's in, so i'm sure that it wouldn't be that hard to shoehorn a rotary into a fwd. frankly this debate is as pointless as a nissan vs commodore one. all you get is the typical one sided people arguing against people who are willing to look at the whole picture.

that will only tell you what sort of motor it was supposed to have (turbo or non turbo and what capacity). won't tell you the engine number to see if it has had a replacement engine put in that was the same type though.