GTSBoy

Well, assuming that the empty spot next to the red one is in fact position 47, then yes, the wire is missing. But, the next position along, 64, I think, should be vacant in the DET loom, and....it has a wire in it. That perhaps indicates that it's a 20 or 25DE loom.

It's a perennial (millennial?) problem.

And they only draw 1 to 2 digits of Amps. AC compressors would draw 3 digits (at 12V).

I've had this type of conversation lately with a couple of peeps on here. The electric compressor is a good idea to prevent the on-off clutch problem from the compressor potentially cycling while at high revs. Granted, in the usage model of charge cooling, it would likely be stuck in the ON condition. But in the OP's usage case, it could quite likely cycle on-off when just working as an AC, even though he might be pooping out 7k rpm at the time. So, yes to elec comp on that basis. But perhaps the better aspect of an elec comp is that you really need a 42V battery there for the alternator to run against. Now, ignoring the weight penalty of having to have another 18 cells of lead acid battery on board (in addition to the native 12V battery) (or potentially something like a lithium battery) you could then actually not even load the alternator while trying to extract max power from the engine. You'd use a clever charge controller between the 42V alt and the 42V battery that would allow charging on overrun and partial throttle, but reduce alternator current draw when above X% throttle opening, or some more sophisticated arrangement, if desired. Then you can still get the comp to run to produce the cools when you need it to cool your weary body (or the air charge) by leaning on the battery for part of the lap. And so on, and so forth. There's a dozen things that you could come up with like that if you really wanted it.

A hood is a thuggish brute with poor manners, BO and a criminal record. That's a bonnet.

And....no. You're not going to draw 3ish kW of power from a 12V supply. BEVs and hybrids that use electric AC compressors are running them on the 42V standard that sort became the thing when such high power demand applications started to become a thing, or even higher voltages. This because..... they have higher voltage available. You wanna rig up a special alternator capable of putting out 42V, then yeah, maybe.

The other thing to keep in mind is that it is not at all good to ask the clutch to pull in at high rpm. If you do not prevent it pulling in up high, then it will, and the clutch will cop a hammering.

The information comes in dribs and drabs. What about the spark plugs? Had them out? Changed them? Particularly #6.

All the really big batteries have standard posts, not small posts. What make and model battery is in it now? WRT to the need for a large battery.....The battery doesn't really need to be huge. Unless you live in the snow.

Isn't it just an NS40ZL? As in, shouldn't they be readily available just about everywhere? That model (Century) battery has terminal type SP, for Small Post.

They're probably all using aftermarket ECUs.

A state of quantum superposition, like Schrodinger's Cat. Both alive and dead - we just haven't found out which, yet.

Or just some carpet without the MDF. If nice flat sections are required, corflute is a lighter alternative.

No....the open diffs also have equal length shafts. I would presume that an LSD upgrade (ie, Quaife) would be primarily aimed at the open diff market, not replacing an already helical diff. I have no idea whether the open diff equal length shafts are the same as in the S15 helical diff or not. They might be. I really should go to the effort to find out one day. The Just Jap listing for the Quaife diff lists it being good for all the S & R chassis diffs (and older long nose diffs too). With the only stipulation being the 29 splines. But of course, we all know that there's a bunch of different spline lengths across all that, hence my concern.

I was skeptical. I haven't looked for a while. But they're now listing the QDF7L for all the R200 chassis cars. All S and R. Just has to be 29 spline stubs. But.... the thing that bothers me about that (apart from the slightly eye watering price) is that the imply you can use it on any such car....but clearly there are different stub axle lengths for the open diffs, VLSDs, and factory helicals. Surely the Quaife can't accept all those axle lengths and you have to either use the equal length stubs or the VLSD unequal length stubs, or maybe even the Nismo equal length stubs. Would require clarification before jumping on board.

It's the same with 3 out of 4 such things Nissan did. HICAS? A bold idea, hampered by insufficient sensors, processing power, and experience with the required algorithm design. Result? Good up to 7-8 tenths, then a f**king nightmare to drive around. A-LSD? Ditto. Ceramic turbos? Yup. Bold idea. Perfectly valid for usage "as intended as a street car without any modification". No bloody good in practice in the real world. Turn up the boost and say bye bye (to the wheel, not the guy you were racing). Only ATESSA came close to being a good first effort and result. Still not perfect, but not really bad in any way.

That's because there isn't an easy Quaife option for non-GTRs.

I am at a loss. Why would there be a kit to remove a seat?

Well, yeah it does. A 1.5 way is just a 2 way that has gentler locking % on decel than accel.

Tank needs to be as high as you can get it, so that you get solid gravity feed to the pressure pump. So, down low in the front guards is not a great idea. Also bad for weight distribution. Up in the rear of the engine bay is better, where the ABS shit lives.

No. A-LSD is more poo than the VLSD, and not a viable option even if you were willing to go down that path because it's just too damn hard to put it in. Yes, but, rare as hen's teeth. Not even worth trying to chase one down. The only sensible option here is a Nismo or Cusco or Kaaz or etc from Japan. I'm not going to try to school you on the rights and wrongs of choosing between 1, 1.5 and 2 diffs though.

Probably the cheapest would have to be a centrifugal supercharger kit. Probably <$10k installed.

Let's just first accept that any truly modern turbo, regardless of outright size, is going to go from not a lot of boost to quite a lot of boost over a very short rpm range. Getting the best transient response out of turbos is where almost all the development has been in the last 20 years. It is only the last 5-10 years worth of turbos that deserve the term "truly modern". That's really the EFRs and the Garret G series. The GTs, GTXs, all the "billet" output from Precision and all that, even the BW SXs and so on, are really representative of the previous generation. (And here I will point out that there's nothing particularly wrong with these turbos at all, excepting real or perceived reliability issues, etc etc, and that these previous generation turbos still represent a fine choice for many applications, potentially even yours). What that means is that the whole 3 psi to 25 psi transition is basiccally the same for all of them. Sure, the larger ones might take a little longer, like an extra 100 or 200 rpm to complete that ramp. But the only real difference is that the smaller turbos are going to do it at a lower starting point, and they are going to do it with smaller power output at the 3 psi end of the range and also at the 25 psi end of the range. The bigger turbos just make more power at every boost level. So you'll have 500rpm more engine speed, and you'll have NA(ish) power output before the boost comes on followed by larger amounts of power all through the boost ramp. I can't see how this will equate to more traction. Anyway, to the question of what turbo to choose. I would concur with previous suggestion towards the EFR 7163 (with some caveats, which we will get to later). I had a look into the options a few years ago and just haven't actually done anything about it. But playing with BW's matchbot software makes the 7163 seem like it is the very sweet spot in the street turbo area. There's a slightly smaller more conventional one, the 7064 or something. The 7670 is bigger. Bigger than the classic GT3076 sort of sizing, perhaps verging into the GT35 territory. Higher power potential with the corresponding tradeoffs at the lower rpm range. The 7163 seems to leverage the obscure benefits of the hybrid flow turbine really well. One of the big issues with picking a turbo is when you find yourself right at either the top or bottom end of the possible turbo size in a given frame size. That can be quite limiting in terms of where you go next if you find that you've f**ked up and have either underdone it or overdone it. The other is simply the pain associated with physically fitting and living with a larger frame size turbo than you actually need. The 7163 and 7670 are medium sized turbos with some room to move (I think you can still go up from there in the same frame if you really needed to, best to check me on that). The bigger frames, particularly on the EFRs which are NOT compact turbos at any frame size, are simply bigger fatter lumps that you have to squeeze into the available space. Anyway, this is a sidebar discussion that you might not care about. What you might care about is that BW seem to be having some QA problems, particularly with castings, on the EFRs. I would suggest that looking into that and finding out from people actually in the turbo game what the current state of affairs is wrt to these reports and how to mitigate and protect against being affected by them would be well worth the effort. And, as the others have also said, if the physical lack of compactness, the potential QA problems, the perceived fragility of EFR rotating components (which shouldn't be a problem when properly selected and operated, but whatever... some people need their hobby horses), and the various other reasons to shy away from EFRs afflict you, then the G30-550/600 or thereabouts would seem to be the right sort of power for the street. Here's some important considerations wrt E85 and lesser E concentrations. You get almost ALL of the benefits of E85 at only half that (so, E40 - E45) territory. Those benefits being resistance to detonation, and outright power output. But, there's typically no such thing as E30 or E42.5 anywhere. So you end up having to blend that shit yourself. So there's no point in planning for power output at those E concentration levels. Just plan for E85 and 98ron, with flex tune to cover whatever happens to be in the tank at the time, and live with what you get. E85 is free power but dismal tank range.

That's a logical fallacy. Injector headroom with little to no negative consequences is absolutely not equal to overbuilding an engine to make dyno queen numbers, then not even intending to use that power for real. Have you missed the point that badly? Street car? Then torque is the boss. Power numbers only arrive in the top half of the rev range. Torque is useful everywhere. And low boost is obvious. That's for your girlfriend who usually drives a FWD shopping trolley. It's for the guy at the tyre shop who does the round the block after the new rubber goes on. It's for the valet, should that ever happen. It's for wet weather. In that case you have quoted common wisdom without understanding where it comes from and why it originates. If you make massive torque down low, such as you could/would with a turbo setup able to make stupidly large power and somehow get a lot of the boost to come in as early as possible..... then you place extremely large mechanical loads on conrods and bearings and can hammer them so badly that they actually do get damaged. There is also the thing about squeezing all the boost you can into an engine in the region around peak torque being a bad thing, and that is because this is where you will cause detonation. So don't tell me you didn't, because you did, even if you didn't realise it.

This makes no sense. There is absolutely no point in building an engine to make big power on a dyno then not to use that power for the vehicle's primary purpose, and WORSE, to suffer the compromises caused by the big power potential, aall of which make the car objectively worse in its primary usage model. This is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Here's the thing - the things you say about big boost + torque made early putting stress into a motor are true. But, they are not true at the power level that actually makes sense on the street. At this magical 300rwkW (and I don't mean magical in a sarcastic sense, I mean magical as in it is actually magical that 300rwkW works well in a street application) you are NOT making enough torque at 3000rpm to actually do the damage you're talking about. At this level you want to ramp the boost on as fast as you can, because area under the curve = acceleration. The only compromise you need to make is to perhaps moderate your boost ramp for traction reasons. Think about a 2.5L engine making good boost at 3000rpm (and only getting better from there up). Compare same to a 5 or 6 L engine running NA, and tell me that you would not want the torque of the 6L engine ALL THE TIME in the 2.5. Seriously.