frozenpod

Stock fuel pump with RB25 was ok until about 245-250rwkw in my car, I moved to a Walbro and it was running out of puff at about 280rwkw. Car runs 270rwkw and has done so for about 15 months without issue. It works fine, fairly quite but a bit more flow would have been nice.

Exactly, I am using Branz coilpacks they work great, about 15 months of use thus far no issues with 270rwkw.

Peter Taplin in Carrum Downs., 0449868651 25 years plus tunning experience one of the best tunners around and very experienced with wolf ECU.

Birds, it is end of financial year time. The government needs to make the bottom line add up. Most likely with the drop in housing sales this was a last ditched effort to generate revenue to be on this years books.

I purchased them from this website, delivery was nice and it was an easy transaction. http://soarerparts.com/

Hi Guys, I installed a set of BranZ coil packs a little over 12 months ago in my R33 RB25. They have worked perfectly putting down 270rwkw without any spark break down. If anyone is looking for a good set of coils they perform well a well priced option.

I have used these in R33, held up fine with no break down at 270rwkw with 12 months of use. http://soarerparts.com/products.asp?cat=18 There isn't coils listed for R34 but I believe the coils for RB25 and RB25 NEO are the same.

I use this. http://www.revolutionracegear.com.au/index...Primary&CDO= Much better quality in terms of build and comfort than the Elcheapo $100 units. It has more face protection than the cheaper open face helmets and I was told is made in the Bell factory (by Revolution Racegear), the older Bell model with RPM branding which was $900 when branded and sold as a Bell helmet. It also has the higher snell approval rating. How much better it is I don't know but the foam was thicker than the $100 units the case is not plastic and after wearing a number of helmets riding bikes ect for extended periods of time this has been the best helmet for comfort and snug fit for my head I have owned.

I have used these, they work great strong spark and 12 months on no issues. http://soarerparts.com/products.asp?cat=18

4 years testing alternative HID setups from $100 ebay jobs to $2000 HID kits, working with manufactures of HID kits to get the bulb design right and also owning and driving a factory fitted auto leveling HID setup in a Honda. The low beam angle with non auto leveling is designed to be pointed down slightly (15 deg split between low and high beam from memory) but with auto leveling the factory setup has the beam cut off level/beam angle set level. Go over a small bump speed hump ect and the beam points into the eyes of oncoming drivers before the auto leveling can react.

I have KU36's they are not a semi slick they are extreme performance dry tyres not intended for wet use but they can get you home if you drive ultra carefully. I would suggest KU31's they way to go for a street car as the KU36's are horrible in the wet, they have poor feedback and they randomly let go even when maintaing constant speed around a constant radius corner. KU36's great in the dry once they have a very small amount of heat into them but not as nice in terms of ride, noise and feel/feedback compared to all weather tyres. They wont last as long as KU31's with the same car same driver under normal street conditions.

That is how they are supposed to work in theory but in reality they are worse than regular headlights as per my previous comments as the standard factory adjustment with auto leveling headlights is much higher so before the can change position (adapt) they blind oncoming drivers.

Yes it is flawed auto leveling suspension is a much better way to go but it is much more expensive.

Autolevelling is for one purpose only in the event that a large load is placed on the rear of the car ie 3 people in the back plus luggage or a trailer that the headlights wont due to loaded suspension point up higher than normal and into the eyes of oncoming drivers. The autolevelling fitted on most cars reacts very quickly, the headlights are typically pointed up higher than they would have been without autolevelling and over bumps and speed humps these systems briefly blind other drivers where are regular non auto leveling headlight would not.

Back to back testing resulting in about 3-5 deg of timing retard required across the range from switching from BP ultimate to Shell V-power on my mates race car (SR20 putting out about 240rwkw about 20rwkw drop in power with Shell V-power). He is now running ultra high octane race fuel now I think about 113ron and picked up another 40rwkw over BP ultimate different days different dynos different tuner.

The HID regulations are.... the auto leveling headlights breifly blind oncoming drivers over speed humps where without auto leveling they wouldn't do so as badly and the requirement for water sprayers are a joke. As to being pulled over under these circumstances and the way in which the EPA was issued without hearing the exhaust and having no concept if it was legal I would take this to court. There is no reason you should have to pay $75 for this test under these circumstances.

Birds, I suggest you look into taking this further. Assuming they didn't listen to the exhaust at all and only noticed your car had a non factory exhaust visually they should be pulled up on this one. But quick question why were you pulled over in the first instance, did they notice your car because of your exhaust?

The black battery I was refering to was the black DiaMec that you have posted the specs to in this thread not the Oddyssey. I had a look on the manufactures website couldn't find anything about cream vs black look to be the same to me. http://www.diamec.com/e/default_home.asp Listed as having maximum discharge current of 600A for 5 seconds. Could be ok and given the information in the other thread (assuming the cream DiaMec and black DiaMec are the same) probably worth the risk, if you use it let us know how it goes.

I thought my posts were clear, but I must be mistaken. I asked a question, the question was regarding if an installation or modification meeting the current guidlines at the time the modification was made if a new guidline came in which stated that same modification was no longer legal is that modification still legal as it was done to meet the guidlines at the time. ie If you car was built to ADR37/01 emissions if you need to pass an emissions test you car needs to meet the ADR37/01 emissions not the current ADR79/01. I think we have estabilished that the previous guidline is no longer valid unliked ADR's so you would have to meet the current guidlines which could potentially mean removing modifications, changing them to meet the current guidlines, getting certification ect. I have reponded to your statement about superchargers being illegal loop hole statment with trying to understand what you meant as it was either legal or not legal you haven't explained where you comment of supercharger kits being illegal came from. As per my previous comments information provided by a local supercharger kit manufacture 'the supercharger kits which were not previously ADR certified even though they meet ADR requirements (ADR certification not required under the previous guidlines) when ADR certification was required under the current guidlines the manufacture organised ADR certification to meet the current guidlines.' IE the blower kits were legal under the previous guidlines and there new kits are as well and they are ADR certified. As to the previous kits without certification I assume they are not strickly legal in an EPA sense as per above (previous guidlines verse current) as they do not have certification even though they did meet the requirements at the time. Previous post.{ QUOTE (R31Nismoid @ 12 Apr 2010, 10:59 AM) Plenum - Illegal (unless 1 intake mod) POD - Illegal (unless 1 intake mod) FMIC - Illegal (unless 1 intake mod) Injectors - Illegal, given you need aftermarket ECU to run them...[/qte] 1 intake mod?? You have this regulation from the EPA modification guidlines wrong if you think you are only allowed 1 intake modification. You can have as many intake modifications as you like provided they meet the requirements unless you have an aftermarket intercooler which in the case of an aftermarket intercooler it is the only modification that you are allowed to have. Modfied plenum chambers are not legal under any circumstances without ADR approval. } Your post indicated that an aftermarket plenum would be legal if it was the only modification ie unless 1 intake mod which is not the case. It also appeared to me to indicate that you were refering to the one intake modification rule and yes I did say rule and you didn't.

I was reffering to the previous EPA requirements that as per my previous comment I cant find my copy of which did allow for a supercharger under the one intake modification ruel. As I remember it, this was not in breach of EPA under the previous guidlines as it was as I understood it previously legal dispite your comments of it being illegal but allowed due to a loop hole. The only potential issue as I understood it was with ADR and road worthyness not with EPA with the previous guidlines which is no longer the case. I believe the ADR requirements were not a big deal provided you didn't increase the HP beyond 25% you didn't require certification if pollution gear was in place factory ECU and injectors but I could be wrong about this hence why I asked my previous question. But as you seem to be refering to the current EPA guidlines yes as you have said they require ADR certification for an aftermarket supercharger. In the case of a supercharger ADR certification requries inspection by an engineer and signed off report. When I spoke to a supercharger kit manufacture who has ADR certification they said there kit meet ADR regulations and all they had to do was have it signed off on. I was told and I quote from memory that it was a single inspection mechnical only and check of all factory pollution gear and stock engine management was operating as factory. No emissons testing was required as all the factory pollution gear AFM ect were still in place as was factory injectors and ECU. So reffering to the new EPA guidlines and ADR's they clearly can meet them and it isn't an emissions issue unless you start changing injectors ECUs AFM ect. As to the EPA guidlines and my first statement that introduced the supercharger and POD filter for what it is worth I was told this by EPA over the phone when I was checking if what I wanted to do was legal on my at the time twin turbo soarer. I was clearly told that there is no longer 1 intake modification rule and the example provided was you can have a supercharger and a POD filter, the next example was a BOV where no BOV was fitted from factory and a POD filter. This was provided by EPA over the phone. This is why I have used these two examples as they were used by EPA in an explination to me. Yes that is what I said "your BOV was an aftermarket modification it was just a case of the BOV not being pick up" As per my previous comments it is legal from what I understand to have more than one intake modification (except with an aftermarket intercooler) which could be a BOV where there was no BOV from factory and POD filter. Regardless of if you get picked up on this, you do agree that if you fit a BOV where no BOV was fitted from factory that this is a modification but do you agree that this would be legal? Do you also agree that if you have both a POD filter and BOV where no BOV was fitted from factory ie two intake modifications that this was also be legal under the current EPA guidlines.

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Se...es-t311699.html Looks to be the same battery but different colour casing. This could be related/important as the cream colour could be suited for high current discharge.

I am not aware that adding an aftermarket supercharger is in breach of ADR similar adding a turbo provided it is safe road worthy ect and doesn't increase the HP beyond a certain amount I think 25% from memory. Can you please clarify how an aftermarket supercharger is in breach of ADR's. You have posted time and time again in response to people getting away with mods and them not being picked up. Your comments have been along the lines of just because they didn't pick up on it or you got away with it does not legal ect. Your example is exactly the same, your BOV was an aftermarket modification it was just a case of the BOV not being pick up which doesn't mean it was not a modification.

Not knowing better, I'm sure they do and I'm sure if you asked them they would be well aware that some turbo cars from factory didn't have BOV's. As per above there is no overriding regulation that states you can only have 1 intake modification you are legal if you fit a BOV where no BOV was fitted from factory and install a POD filter. I am not aware of there being a loop hole in the previous EPA guidlines relating to intake modifications allowing superchargers, there was a loop hole regarding electronics and ECUs which was caused by being poorly written and it has been removed. IMO as is harrops and a number of other supercharge kit manufactures per the previous guidlines an aftermarket supercharger if it was the only modification was legal. This is a black and white situation there is no 'it was previously illegal but you can have it because of a loop hole'.

Not all turbo cars came with a BOV from factory. If you fit a BOV where there was not a factory fitted BOV this is an aftermarket intake modification. Thence with POD and aftermarket BOV you can legally have more than 1 intake modification. Given your experience with EPA I have the following question for you. If you fitted an aftermarket supercharger before the 2006 EPA guidlines came out which was at the time 100% legal what happens now that the updated EPA guidlines are in place. Assume the installation is not ADR cert would this be in brech of EPA. I ask this question as there is a large number of harrop blower kits running around on LS1's my boss has a blower setup which was installed in 2005 which was at the time perfectly legal but is it legal now. Similarly there are people who have performed single turbo conversions on twin turbo supras which before 2006 was legal. With ADR's the relevant ADR at the time is still in place years on but what happens with EPA guidlines?

The previous EPA guidlines were a little different I no longer have a copy but they did allow for a turbo or supercharger to be installed provided they were done to meet certain requirements and the overrideing rule of only 1 intake modification. As per above the 1 intake modification rule has been dropped but it would be in the case of a turbo car still restricted to only an aftermarket cooler. Another example of more than one intake modification is BOV and POD filter, provided the BOV is not atmospheric venting it is legal to have both modifications.