djr81

Your first step need to be establishing that the car works as advertised. Specifically: 1. Are all the shocks in good, working order. 2. Is the wheel alignment good? 3. Is the HICAS working properly and/or completely diabled. 4. Is the attessa system working properly.. To help clarify you need to specifiy which PART of the corner the car is misbehaving in. There are generally held to be four parts: 1. Braking/approach. 2. Turn in. 3. Apex. (zero throttle) 4. Exit (power on) Depending on where it is going funny will direct you toward what may be wrong with the car. Eg if the turn in is odd it is usually a combination of the HICAS & the wheel alignment making the car feel odd. If it is item 4 then it is almost always the ATTESSA system. So rather than chucking the kitchen sink at it have a bit of a think about where it is all going wrong.

No you use the DL1 to measure speed via GPS, accelerations via its own internal accelerometers & such things as rpm, throttle position & steering angle by tapping into the mutlitude of sensors already on the Nissans. Not expensive - you just need an auto sparkie to sort out how to get the sensor outputs configured to work with the DL1. As far as measuring downforce the wing generates it is far easier to put a strain gauge on the wing supports than trying to find what the suspension is doing. I mean, as (say) 50kg downforce with a rear spring rate of 5kg/mm you are looking for a 5mm deflection (You have 2 springs). Which with bumps etc and only a short time period to find it would be hard.

www.race-technology.com See the DL1.

Fair enough. I am not sure anyone has front end grip problems post apex as it is a power on oversteer issue that characterises the cars handling at this point and aero grip can only do so much to solve it. I guess what I was trying to say was two fold: 1> Balance is as important as grip. 2> A wing that produces downforce behind the rear wheels will both add grip to the rear & lessen grip at the front. So a working wing will have the effect of adding understeer to the car. I sort of take the view that getting the car balanced in the mid corner helps your confidence in the car, your apex speed & your ability to apply power. As such I dont reckon a big rear wing will help you. If you watch the good drivers in 2wd cars (particularly low powered 2wd cars) you will be surprised by how 'loose' the car is. But anyway it isn't a huge effort to bolt it up & see what happens. If all else fails the wing may make a good towell rail or something at a later point.

Well given that the GT-Rs struggle with front end grip unless you can otherwise make the thing oversteer past the apex I wouldn't fit the wing at all.

I removed my Whiteline srpings & replaced them with Eibach. Much lighter and a stiffer spring rate to boot. You need a few extra bits other than the springs but someone on here should be able to tell you want to use with the 33's.

Had to buy a kit. Lower control arms (which I used), mounting brackets (same) & castor rods (which are sitting in the shed at home). Best bet to probably the Yahoo Auctions for the components. I got mine ex east.

They can be had in 2 door turbo & 4 door (Pillarless) turbo. The Australian built versions do not have turbos. There is an R31 2 door for sale on this site somewhere.

Well I am not sure they are worth the coin Nissan charge for them but they work & help fix some of the issues the R32's have with front end geometry. So whilst I still begrudge the amount I had to pay & also the amount of time it took to remove the ABS unit & the master cylinder to fit the things in I am pretty pleased with the result.

I have given up on hoping to buy something half decent to put in the front of my R32R. So I made my own. When I say I made it, well I sketched it before giving to the draftie, who gave it to the fitter who gave it to the boilermaker/welder, who gave it back to the fitter who gave it to me to fit. Anyway it appears to work & confer heroic amounts of -ve camber on the front. I used the Whiteline bush kit. The ends are matched to the same length & id as the stock components, the trail is 22(ish)mms from memory & the length I settled on was 170mm. Bolted up nicely.

Slightly off topic but I offered up my CE28's to the my R32R on the weekend. They fit nicely but.....the but being the wheel studs are too short for my liking. How are they on the 34?

A couple of things: 1: Remember, it is always someone elses fault or atleast there is someone doing something worse than you. So don't feel any need to take responsibility for your own actions. Just point out something someone else is doing wrong. Got caught doing something stupid on the road? Easy just point out someone else speeding. Got a yellow sticker? Point at someone elses unroadworthy car. Remember kiddies your wrong doing is always diminished by someone elses. (If anyone missed it that was sarcasm...) 2: Cops need to dose up on more testosterone. "Certainly, apprehending hoons ad hoc is wonderful..." These are the same police who regularly confess they have no real idea how to reduce the road toll. This sort of stupidity is what happens when a public nuisance offense is dressed up as a road safety issue.

If you grab the -5's get some cam gears to go with them & spend the money for the dyno time to get the response down low. This is less of an issue with the -9's. A good set up wont give you a kick in the pants. It should have a soft transition when it comes on boost.

Please understand that in WA fighting the good fight (pick your side) in the TUNER WARS is far more important than anything else car related. That they can do it is one thing. That you may want them to do it is another. What I was trying to point out was the problem with a higher PR from the turbo is alot more heat pumped into the compressed air. You get a triple wammy - more heat because of more compression, more heat because of a less efficient compression & more heat again because the turbine neads a higher PR to make all this happen. Now the intercooler can take out only so much heat. But yeah I am continually surprised how far some people are happy to push their turbos. I can't say I have any real feel to working with turbos at the limits (or past them) of the compressor maps (as opposed to the compressor itself). I do tend to think that because of the approximations you have to make to find the operating point on the map mean you lose precision & therefore have to rely on the realworld for verification. Which leaves you exposed to being mugged by reality. Anyway I would grab the -9's in preference to the -7's. And probably the -5's in preference to both. But that is just me.

The important thing to note is this: As a very general rule, turbocharged gasoline engines will generate 9.5-10.5 horsepower (as measured at the flywheel) for each lb/min of airflow. So, an engine with a target peak horsepower of 400 Hp will require 36-44 lb/min of airflow to achieve that target. This is just a rough first approximation to help narrow the turbo selection options. Say we use 440rwhp & 22psi from a -9. So, for the sake of the argument we have a -9 running 440rwhp. Now you need to convert this to flywheel horsepower. So add 1/3 (Say). You get 586hp. Divide by 10, then again by two (2 turbos) & the airflow is 29lb/min per turbo. As for the pressure ratio you have 14.7 (atmosphere) + 22 (boost) / 14.7 (input pressure) = 2.5. I usually round these up a bit because the input of the turbo does not see atmospheric pressure as there are losses across the filter element and because the MAP sensor is away from the turbo itself. Say 2.8 for the sake of an argument. This can be plotted on the -9 compressor graph. What does it tell you? Well the point is way up in the top right hand corner of the map. The efficiency is falling away and generally the turbo is struggling as evidenced by a shaft speed of approx 150,000rpm. The problem with running here is the lower efficiency of the compressor means more heat is pumped into the air which increases the pressure drop through the intercooler which inturn means a higher pressure ratio is needed to flow the same mass of air. This is why you see a relatively large hike in lbs boost for a relatively small return in rwhp. If you plot the same point on a -5 compressor map you get a much different result. My R32 runs 435rwhp on 14.7 lbs. plotting this on the map shows if anything the -5 is larger than it has to be at these outputs. Anyway the point is despite the fact that these figures are all approximate they are far more illuminating than HKS numbers of a 300hp turbo or whatever they happen to be quoting. As an aside if you can graph the airflow meter voltages versus the engine output you can plot the whole of the engine full throttle run on the compressor maps. Attached is Nissans airflow meter mass flow versus voltage graph. This can also be done using the MAP sensor to calculate the PR. It is easy to do once you have correlated engine output in rwhp to airflow in lb/min. Saves mucking about with many of the Garrett calcs.

Well given they cost all of about $30 for a pair I would just get four.

Done this recently. Stuff you need: JACK STANDS four. Spanners (metric). Sockets (metric) - for when the spanners don't fit. Allen keys for any cup head screws. Soft hammer. Multigrips. Hose etc to bleed the brakes into. A shit load of rags. Emulsifier of your choice (ie brake cleaner, WD40, degreaser whatever) Bandaids. Stuff that is useful: Air tools. (To rattle off recalcitrant bolts, grinding etc) An assortment of screw drivers, levers etc etc to generally convince things to move to where you want them to be. Beer. Take your time & think about what you are doing before you do it. Don't spill brake fluid on anything if you can help it. Don't over torque stuff. Don't be surprised when things don't fit properly, least of all the hoses.

Well then rather than lolling try the rest of the Garrett website. There are some good tutorials on it which explain what all the various terms mean & importantly how to read compressor maps. The important thing to note is this: THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AIRFLOW IN LB/MIN AND THE OUTPUT OF THE MOTOR. This holds true over a very wide range of motors & any number of modifications to the same motor. So a 350hp turbo (for the sake of the argument) will have a capability of flowing 35lb/min of air (assuming 10:1 ratio I can't remember the exact number but it is about that) Anyway the point is once you understand this & understand the nature of the efficiency islands on the compressor map you will then understand why a marked increase in pressure ratio is needed for a turbo to eek out the last few lb/min airflow. You may further understand why this is usually a bad idea & why a boost reading can be regarded as a measure of failure of the turbo/motor combination to work efficiently (As opposed to something to brag about) Sorry if that sounds harsh but please take the time to read what Garrett have written. It is much more usefull than p!ssing competitions between keyboard warriors. Anyway love to all, etc....

Rather than enter into a pissing competition about whos dyno operator is better & how many rwhp people may need why don't people simply refer to the compressor maps supplied by Garrett? They have been created for a reason. Perth & its *%ing tuner wars. See here for the -7 http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...0R_707160_7.htm -9 http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...9R_707160_9.htm -5 http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...0R_707160_5.htm

Well the SES has come a very long way in the last few years. I cannot think of anyone doing anything like a full series & not running R compounds. Although some classes are still a bit on the hollow side, some are massively over subscribed. eg there were a lazy 20 AWD's amongst the 100 entrants at the Xmas sprint last year. Anyway the point should be made. A car cannot be made competitive for $10k. So just focus on the fun component.

The point being that those two numbers should not be together on the same build plate.

Yes but.... The thing you need to remember about class cars (eg IPRA) is that they require the use of a number of stock components and/or restrict the cars to using, as an example, smaller than what may be ideal tyres. They do this in order to make the racing more competitive. So you need to apply some common sense in modifying a sprint/hillclimb car with a view to later using it as a proper race car. EG look at the IPRA regs with regard to front suspension freedoms. You would be mad to ignore front end modifications on a sprint/hillclimb car just to comply with IPRA regs. Simply because if you do your car will be slower & less fun to drive. Not to mention chew its front tyres.

A lock bar isn't a bandaid fix it simply replaced a badly engineered bit of Nissan bandaid fix. Do you have the GT-R workshop manual? There is an exhaustive section on diagnosing HICAS issues. Start by reading the error light on the HICAS computer.....

Turbine wheels are commonly made out of a material usually referred to as inconel (an old tradename). Nominally this is a type of steel. Specifically it is an austenitic nickel chromium based alloy. It is non-magnetic. Nickel content is more than half, chromium is about a quarter, iron content is only some 5% or so. So the turbine can be both steel & non magnetic. Look here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel

The calcs you used were for incompressible fluids ie liquids, not gases & your assumptions were wrong. Apart from that the general principles are the same. As I said for a given mass flow (constant in our case), a given pipe diameter (Constant) & the various other assumptions you can make about the pipework you can say the following: The hotter pipe will suffer from more pressure drop. So make the hot side shorter. Better yet make both sides shorter. Even better yet focus alot of effort on the inlet side of the turbo so it does not have to pump so much heat into the air in the first place.