GTSBoy

Not to mention the other things that you can trivially do these days to add protection with a decent aftermarket ECU, being oil pressure and fuel pressure, hell, even coolant pressure. These are all great even on a streeter, and far beyond what the factory ECU offers. If I had spent money inside my engine I would be seriously considering the aftermarket ECU approach rather than the Nistune I use now. When I decided to use Nistune I took the cheap option because it was plenty good enough for a basically stock engine not being pushed hard. Now, many many years later, with spare engines being a forgotten memory and the costs of fixing damage being a lot higher than they used to be, I should probably be reconsidering right now.

Nah. Not in the proper context. A street car could be quite modified. You're not running with a factory ECU on factory maps like that. So you dial out all the R&R that is up in the top RH corners of the maps (which is the bulk of the factory "engine protection". The factory put it there because they did not intend the engine to ever run there and figured that the only way the engine could get there was via a failure (ie wastegate line) or some Neanderthal futzing with the inputs. But as soon as we turn up the boost we start to go into that part of the maps and need to clean them up. If you clean them up, then there is no more "protection". Just more map you can use. The OEM knock detection and the strategies used in the factory ECUs (which varied from the R32 era of changing to the knock maps, which were even richer and more retarded everywhere than the R&R corner of the later ECUs, to just mapping in R&R and having a big timing subtraction applied in case that didn't work) works, so long as the knock sensors are telling the truth, which is not to be taken for granted.

These are not opinions. You pull the lever, it doesn't change gear. You leave it to itself, it changes gear. You have outlined the problem perfectly.

And it is nearly 4 years ago. You just do the optimism bud. Just do it.

Does that not sound like it's not changing gears? It kind of sounds like it's not changing gears. I dunno. Maybe. It's. Not. Changing. Gears.

It might not hurt so much if you can supply some lube.

Yes, but not because they are TTY bolts (which they are not). It is because they are 30 years old, have done a million billion cycles and an engine builder is BUILDING an engine, usually with the intent to push it hard.

Back in the grim old days of carburetors, and particularly in the emissions era of carbies before EFI came along to save the day, a lot of carbies had a fairly significant dashpot on the throttle linkage to slow down the closure of the throttle. I used to hate that, particularly on an old Navara that we used to have on the farm. Nowadays, the same thing is making a comeback in EFI cars, particularly newer ones with e-throttles. The manufacturers are doing it as an emissions control thing. I can't remember exactly what it is that a rapid close causes, probably NOx. Given that the Lancer is probably massively newer than your dirty old datto, and your dirty old datto certainly has no such dashpotting function, it's likely to be that.

Yes, but what sort of diagnostics have you done? Randomly flicking switches and soldering joints is not diagnostics. Have you looked at he wiring diagram and probed with multimeter (based on the understanding of the wiring diagram) at all?

They're not single use. The workshop manual just gives a simple torque figure to do them up to.

Is this a question?

You can't run large caster for other reasons (beyond your obvious problems from having the wheel too far forward in the well and the steering binding). The bushes in the upper arms cannot tolerate the twisting load that high caster causes, unless you have an arm that will pivot in the centre. The only example of which that I trust is the GKTech one. I can't see what arms you have, but I can see in one photo the bolt end that indicates stock arms with Whiteline adjustable bushes. If that's what you have, even the 6.5° you were running will trash the bushes tut de suite. The only other available fix is to change the locations of the holes in the body side bracket for the FUCAs to change (reduce) the "twist angle". There's a thread on here and the post I linked shows what needs doing to achieve the mod.

Do you have the wiring diagram?

No, exactly the opposite. Neos have chambers that are ~10cc smaller than vanilla 25s, and so they have pistons with lower crowns (to achieve approx the same compression ratio as vanilla). If you put the big vanilla chamber on a Neo piston, you get very low compression. What you need is vanilla pistons to go with the vanilla head.

The fact that it is called out as the "Main Power Cable" should be pretty telling.

Nah - wireless power transmission is a thing dudes.

These are the key points. Any sacrifice of what the RB20 has to offer before the boost threshold only hurts driveability. You can make an RB20 make lots of power, but when you do you get nothing, nothing, nothing, wheelspin.

A short runner manifold an only be teh suck on an RB20.

In that context, the Nismo plenum, if it offers the benefits that they claim, would be a good thing. The larger plenum volume will certainly help on big power cars. The improvements to the runner geometry might help. The length increase would be unnoticeable (except inasmuch as it might contribute to the large volume).

It looks like a simple fabrication job. Do some measurements, do a sketch, and get a local sheet fabber to make it up out of stainless?

S13 and 14 are tripod CVs, (not the proper CVs on the 5 bolt axles). I'm pretty sure that the boots are different. As far as I know, any driveshaft/CV workshop should be able to source replacements.

90% it's the fuse.

It just sounds like ANY NA RB with an exhaust. Seriously.

They what? The runners one RB25 etc are waaay longer than 2 or 3 inches. Are you talking about RB26?

Just sounds like an NA RB. Just like an NA RB.