GTSBoy

Test actual voltage on battery. It's probably way low and possibly got a shorted cell. Something that might explain everything in your report.

Actually, I'd argue that that is exactly when having the wastegate/scroll isolation correct would show the most benefit.

And the full R32 GTR wiring diagrams are also freely available. Hmm.... there's supposed to be an auto replace that would have linked the thread. Here it is, manually

40 grit sounds about right, to start. You make some decent cuts/damage in the coating with that, then rapdily scale up to maybe 80 and 120 for the bulk of the actual removal, then fine it off to 180 or 240 perhaps. No need to go any finer than that, and maybe no need to go even as fine as that. Wrap it on a big block and have at it. At least on the hub face.

Do the GKTech rear lower control arm mount relocation, and either alloy subframe inserts or very stiff subframe bushes. Traction is going to be at a premium!

My guess? Almost perfect separation. The pressure pulses would bleed across, but because they have to squeeze through the gap, they will be substantially attenuated. Given most twin gates are plumbed back to atmosphere..... I would say that experiment is well understood. But in reality, it would make no difference to spool at all, if they are 2 completely separated gates. What happens downstrema of them will not affect spool at all.

Look, it's very simple. The 6 bolts or the 9 bolts are interface between the clutch and the flywheel. Any flywheel will bolt to any RB crank - the bolts in the centre there are the same same. So, you just need teh flywheel to suit the turbo clutch. That's all. No more to think about. Get both, boost off into the sunset. (only without the boost).

It's not true. RBs only have one gearbox bolt pattern. I mean, I was surprised that there was a different clutch bolt count on the weak NAs, but that's on the flywheel, which is not part of the engine.

That doesn't sound like bad news. That sounds like the never ending packet of TimTams.

Yeah. A long time ago someone hassled me to buy a raffle ticket where first prize was a Mitsu 3000GT. He was most up[set when I asked if 2nd prize was 2 of them.

I found it easiest to get rid of the engine that needed the smaller pulley and dropped in a whole Neo. The new PS pump comes with the engine. Deleting the HICAS lines is easier with the engine out too! :p

There is no difference. The existing turbo and intercooler would very most likely not be suitable for reuse. The existing tune would be meaningless. The issues with fitting things in are exactly the same.

Grind them off, drill them out. Repair any rust on the other side. Start again from scratch.

Soz! I don't know why, but I thought that your post was by @MrStabby, which is the source of my confusion.

Who you asking? Someone with those Teins specifically?

Sorry, I thought "It's definitely not firing order." would be clear enough to say that it is definitely coil #.

It's definitely not firing order. But I think it should also be made clear that the output that gets fired is the one that corresponds to the input that was switched at the ECU. So you could scramble them up totally so that the numbers meant nothing, and so long as you had the inputs and outputs matched up, you'd be fine. The reason I make that point is that blanket statements about what it is supposed to be don't always hold out in a world where there's been 30 years for the wiring to have been stuffed with.

Remove it. Certainly from the hub face. I'm not in love with leaving it on the wheel assembly surface either - but if it is common to do so, then....maybe fair enough. It's not difficult. Just time consuming. For the hub face you just need a large enough block and suitable grades of abrasive paper to get it off flat. The same would be true of the assembly face. Just more time consuming, probably needing a lot more care. It's defo going to be easier just to assemble the wheels as is, seal them up, and check them periodically to see if there's any movement or loosening of the fasteners, than it will be to remove it though.

Semi-correction to my blanket statement that you can't bend rubber hoses. It seems that you can get most of a result, by doing as this guy does. I wouldn't promise that the bends will stay in the hose forever. I think if I found they wouldn't stay, I'd get a larger hose and cut some 90°s out to go over the bends I wanted to be in the smaller hose, as a reinforcement.

Probably. But keep in mind that all Joshua was saying that because of things like timing scatter, and many other related and unrelated things, tuning too aggressively should be avoided. Hence why both he and I said that fitting the cat shouldn't cause you to suddenly fall into the danger zone.

The stock Nissan CAS gets very messy at high rpm, particularly with bigger cams/springs, and most aftermarket ECUs don't do as good a job of filtering the noise as the OEM ECU somehow manages to do. So you get "scatter" in the timing signals that can be really destructive to the ECU's knowledge of engine position. And so you can get spark firing many degrees early, leading to catastrophic detonation events.

I'm pretty sure that HK would only have the same blend all year 'round, but whatever.

Just put a Haltech in it. Be aware that there is little extra speed available, so almost any money spent on NA "tuning" is wasted. Far better to spend on brakes, suspension, etc. Be also aware that the auto will die behind a turbo, so a manual swap is not a bad idea. Be aware that parts for these tasks are becoming very difficult to find.

Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.

There's a whole subforum right here. 3rd sticky down.