Kinkstaah

Will aforementioned 48mm wastegate fit where 50mm wastegates usually fit? If so, willing to separate it?

Yep, as soon as I heard T40E running 3 psi (??) on standard ECU I was about to post something similar to the above. It could be a CAS, AFM, or Ignitor issue, but if you have a standard ECU, anything other than a standard turbo is going to cause you massive grief in one way or another. I'd be putting a standard turbo or something standard sized (rb25?) and get as many things as possible close to stock as you can, and then go after troubleshooting things. With that setup there's just almost no way you could get it running well in any scenario, even if every component was setup right.

Given the posts in this thread, it seems my wear isn't that unusual, an in line with what adms15 reports really. So this is refreshing to know! It probably IS just weight transfer, as I am very new to track driving really, and losing weight over the rear end when braking is a little unnerving, but I can see how getting used it is part of the game and beneficial. Won't know until I pull the front pads off to see how much there is left there, probably nothing major to worry about. Given nearly no one (or anyone) bothers running a brake bias adjuster I am suspecting it's probably fine, but I was worried I wasn't getting the max out of the upgraded front brakes. I guess the solution long term is upgrade the rear to 356mm to match the front (or maybe 330mm as the R34 doesn't run 296/296...)

Sync... As in.. 1:1 replace rate front and rear? Or sync as in front wearing less than rear?

For me, I'm not entirely sure whether it IS the rear locking or whether it's just a feeling of abs kicking in, or hard braking in general. Looking closer, my wear looks closer to maybe less than half left on the front. Way more than the rear though! Did your rear twitchiness change when you went from a matched pad to having a softer pad at the back? I did initially have a softer rear pad... But then matched them all up later. Unfortunately my own mixed set initially was so bad it can't be used to draw a comparison.

Offensive bump. I just noticed today that my rear brakes and pads are effectively death. Braking at the track results in a very squirmy rear end to which I always figured everyone had to deal with. Front pads (356mm D2/Ksport/Attakd kit) are the same pads as the rear. Changed at the same time. They have 50% meat left on them (approximately) while the rears are toast. Considering people typically don't change the prop valve or even really report problems with this - Is something likely to have failed, or should I go out and actually get a prop vale to sort this out? The fact that Duncan up there reckons he changes his front pads 5 times for every set of the rears makes me think something is clearly incorrect here!

My housemate knows the people at Vspec performance very well. Enough so that when I go there (or Raceline for an alignment) I get the people there start saying things that only my housemates would know for the lols. The owner of it is also the guy who bought the first NSX in Australia. He collects them because he likes them. The capital comes from the same place a 25ish year old obtains Australia's first NSX comes from, i.e the same people that buy a lot of property in Australia. They get put up for sale when they get bored of having them sitting around in a collection, to make way for other things. Supposedly a Ztune is coming soon, there's two 400R's there at the moment too.

My USA plate is black and white. They're the same dimensions as the ACUTAL JDM plate, so they will fit any front bar, the way it was always intended.

USA/Jap size plates fit fine.

320 is the number where everything on a skyline starts to die (if you go over it) I.e a) Too much lag b) Gearboxes die c) Clutches start becoming expensive/hard to drive d) Grip is a problem, no tyres exist to keep your foot on the ground in RWD As mentioned it's not "too much" as long as you confirm the rest of the setup being healthy, or whether it all looks sketchy as f**k. If it's a known car, decent human, people can confirm its status, seems to behave, pass tests, yeah it's not too much. Keep in mind though, and perhaps even keep some money aside for 'another' engine, because 'safe' does not mean 'safe indefinitely'. There have been reported failures on good setups well under 300KW as well.

It's to make sure it's under high boost under all conditions all of the time. Certain conditions from Nissan are very conservative for a person who wants more power at the cost of a paperclip

Any interest in parting out just the bodykit? If not, can you PM me where it came from? I have fantasies of fitting the wider fenders 'one day'.

I swapped these personally (went from Xenons to normals because normals are better than hacked up Xenons) and they are exactly the same shape though there is a little bit of wiring to do as the plug is different. Physically though, the outer dimensions are the same.

I think it'd depend a lot on the examples in question. I would rather have known demons than unknown ones, like say, rebuilding a M3 V8?

But.... but... Is it normal on R33's that one wheel is in-front of the other, and can have much less Castor before it starts hitting things? Pretty this is what OP is trying to explain here

They look "odd" because E85 typically needs "30%" (give or take) more fuel than 98. In the real world its actually a little less. They also need 30%, all over the rev range. It does differ a little under load (otherwise it would be 30 in every cell!) but not from 19 to 43%. Yours goes from 19% under low load, to 43% under full load. In addition to that, your tables imply that you add 133% of the correction when you have 80% ethanol in the tank. This would mean it would be 133% of 43%. 20% is too little and your E85 would be dangerously lean. 43% is too much and this means either your E85 map is fine (and your 98 is too lean) or your E85 is too rich. Note: The above numbers are when 100% of the correction is being applied to a decent base map. However.... yours is 133% of the numbers applied!. 133% of the correction being applied means that everything is 'out' even further'. The numbers are impossible numbers, it can't be correct, unless something is making it be correct, which is what the O2 WB does, it adds and removes fuel to try and hit the target on the "Target AFR" map, which is basically closed loop fuel control. The Target AFR map doesn't appear to be too bad as it's looking for 12:1 AFR under full load. It is common/advised practice to have the base map as accurate as possible, and not have an O2 controller have a monstous effect, though the Haltech lets it apply up to 25% more or 25% less fuel if need be. If this fails for any reason you are going to have a bad time if it is set up this way.

Other than the curvature of the earth, they are kind of all valid points But yes O2 gauge is kind of needed, everything else seems "fine" If you wanted to get real creative you could measure your VSS against time, to see if you were really slower between two specific points/runs. This however would require the problem to be reproducable at will. Or at least happen while you are logging it. Note: I didn't see the boost actually hit the limit of what the ECU is seeing at all. MAP pressure was all 21.5ish points, when it goes over the limit it will just flatline at 22.8 or w/e it is. The graphs do not show this.

I wouldn't even do it if the price differential between the two was 10K.

Also 44% more fuel is massive, 133% of 44% more fuel is obscene. The numbers just look... wrong? The stoich values of 98 and E85 are too different surely for both the 98 tune and E85 tune to be right at the higher end of that scale. Either the 98 base tune is dangerously, dangerously lean, or the E85 is horrifically rich. Now keep in mind, if you have the O2 sensor running and the controller doing its thing, it is possible for these correction maps to be really far out, and the O2 controller will do what it can to adjust. This may be the reason the car has bad E85 economy if it cannot actually trim enough up top. What is your AFR under load on E85 anyhow, what does the Haltech say/does it show in the onboard logs?

And fuel compensation scalar. It basically defines how much of the fuel compensation table is applied. Note: It is not linear!

IT is all about ability to learn, not what you know. At least that's what I care about. Souce: Worked in IT since 1999

The RB26 tax on that build was unreal. Two in a row asking for 28-30k for an engine. Maybe I'll put 26 rocker covers on it and up the price by 15K. Throw in some free VCT or something.

Feel free to buy my RB28 instead Birds, lol.

... 1) isn't the answer because Lith asked two different things.. What is controlling boost/map pressure/load when you are driving around on the street? You can't really tune over what the ECU is seeing, unless you fudge the numbers and have the same timing/fuel at 24psi that you do at 21psi. This is really very bad for both possible boost settings, or it's perfect for one of them, and really bad for the other one. There is an argument that when it's set to 24psi you are never at 21psi at 7000rpm, or at 21psi at 5000rpm, so you can use those cells on the map to tune for 24psi but.. yeah... The best way to test this is actual testing, to confirm whether it's in your head or not. Phone app of some sort would be ideal to do a few back to back runs on a deserted (private) road. Especially if it "feels bad". Cars aren't ever truly intermittent.

Trust me when I say weird shit happened and I had to end the day early But less earlier than normal!