GTSBoy

Drifters should not use the tiny little handbrake stuff on Nissans. That is why hydraulic handbrakes exist. But also, drifters should know better and expect their shit to break/wear out anyway.

That table would probably be better with 1.25 restrictors instead of blocked off for the standard pump cases. That would include the N1 pump, because it's really not that much larger (if at all) than a stocker. Neos have the N1 pump, for example.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like you have something put back together wrong. Gasket blocking a gallery or other opening, hoses in the wrong places, something like that.

Intimidate? In real terms, it doesn't matter what the cops drive. The idea of high speed pursuits is so anachronistic these days that it doesn't matter whether they drive Camaros, R35 GTRs, Passats or Yarises. They will either call off the pursuit because "too dangerous", or they will chase you. The only place you can realistically outrun any other vehicle these days is highways, and helicopters love highways. Helicopters are what the cops are really using to intimidate motorists these days.

I'll handle this one Ben. The answer is compressible conrods.

Yuh, because a bleeder is 11ty times easier than new pistons. If I was building my Neo right now, I would be putting in higher comp pistons and you could not convince me to do otherwise.

This is where the nonsense is. The engine will rev according to how much power it is making vs the load applied to it. If you are still maintaining that higher compression will make the engine rev more slowly, then we still have a problem.

Additional restriction is a thing when the oil pump has been upgraded. Not just a "because" thing.

What is wrong is the allusion to .... Because it is not relevant. Just because the higher CR makes it harder for you to spin it by hand, it does not mean that the piston motion will be made slowed when the motor is running and having to work to compress to a higher ratio. That is because the compression is being powered by power that results from the extra compression in other cylinders, and there is more of that than is required to to drive the compression event. You can't just take part of the engine cycle out of context of the other parts, say something about it is true (when it is true only in isolation, but not true when put back into context) and then go on to draw conclusions about how the motor will run.

Still wrong. For every extra bit of compression working against the piston on the compression stroke, you have more power than that working against another piston on the power stroke.

Thermostat in backwards? What did you do to it that lead you to need to bleed it up? Just a coolant change, or some dismantlery?

You have (had) more than one problem. Bad -ve battery terminal plus also something not good in the ignition switch or the starter's solenoid. The sum of the two problems meant that slightly improving one of them (wiggling the terminal) was enough to get you over the number of volts required to make shit happen. But the majority of the problem was elsewhere and it was nearly enough to stop you before, and now it appears to be enough to stop you, even with a new earth cable. The ignition switch supplies power to the solenoid on the starter and the solenoid should throw to do 2 things. The one is to engage the starter with the flywheel, but the major part of it is to switch the very large contactor that actually connects the battery to the starter. If the solenoid or the contactor are not working properly, you get voltage drops or poor contact that just stops it from doing what it is supposed to. This usually requires dismantling and cleaning at the minimum, usually some sort of rebuild.

The first line of your reply is obviously obvious. Let's ignore the engine management aspects of that, and just agree that the turbo is making the cylinder swallow double the mass of air (and hence fuel), and hence power. The second line of your reply is weird. It seems as though you are trying to educate me to change my thinking. Which is actually the opposite of what is actually happening here. That is going to be different for different engines and different applications. Too many variables involved to have a blanket answer. Drag different to circuit different to hillclimb (think Pike's Peak altitude changes) different to Formula 1. PULP different to E85 different to F1 rocket fuel. 2 valve head with big piston domes (ie, old ALFA, early Toyota twin cams) different to modern 4 valve pent roof, different to old school 2 valve V8 different to modern 2 valve V8 with lots of squish, etc. Heads that cause a lot of swirl different to heads that cause a lot of tumble, different to heads with controls that allow them to switch those behaviours on and off. Development stage different to finished engine. Taking the last part of that first, if you have a given engine and it is detonating on your compression and boost combo, you would obviously reduce boost, because lowering compression is not really feasible. Or you do something with your fuel, or you look for WMI opportunities, etc. But if you're developing the engine, then the long list of application specific excuses I gave above comes into play. The usage model for the engine is probably the first consideration. A circuit engine needs good response, so you'd be less likely to want to reduce compression ratio on that than you would on a drag engine. All the other details I listed will make a difference as to whether you will get more total power (peak and average across the used rev range) using more boost or more compression. It comes down to the detonation resistance of the head/piston design and the aerodynamics and the final trade offs between dynamic compression ratio and inlet charge temp and all that blah blah. Actual prototyping and dyno testing would be required to find out what's happening. It's not something that's going to be amenable to theoretical analysis without a lot of real world data to base the finger sucking on. In your specific example though, if you are at 11.5:1 and only using 9 psi and reaching your knock threshold, it would suggest that you do have too much compression ratio and should probably drop that because you can probably make more power that way. That's simply from an armchair view of the situation that says that 11.5:1 is a very high compression ratio for a turbo engine, probably exceeding the abilities of the sorts of fuels that we use, PULP certainly. Maybe but maybe, E85 is suitable for that sort of turbo'd static compression ratio, because it is so good at suppressing detonation. But that's a sidetrack discussion. As a counterpoint though, with 9.5:1 compression there are plenty of engines like ours that are running 30+ psi on E85 type fuels. So I'd like to think that you could run what looks like a silly high amount of compression, like 10.5 to 11.5 and still have a decent amount of boost (pick a number, say 20 psi) and make great power with an engine that is also much more responsive. Remember that the fundamental thermal efficiency of an engine is limited by the static compression ratio. The higher the CR, the more efficient the engine is - the more work it can pull out of the fuel. Make more gas flow when off boost and as boost is ramping and you will make better use of your turbo. Again, the above is my ramblings. There are millions of words published on these subjects already, that would hopefully not disagree with what I have written and also hopefully be a lot more accurate and precise. If you are interested, it would be well worth your while chasing down the writings of properly knowledgeable performance industry people and things like SAE articles. SAE articles can be hard going though.

You are thinking about it wrong. NA engine cylinder inhales 1x swept volume per intake event. Ignoring volumetric efficiency of course. Put turbo onto engine, running 1 bar of boost. Let's ignore the effect of increased exhaust manifold pressure for the moment. That turbo'd cylinder still inhales 1x swept volume per inlet event, but now that gas is at double the density. Twice as much mass of air gets into the cylinder. And the ECU has to chuck in twice as much fuel to go with it. You now have twice the energy (from fuel) released during the combustion event and hence twice the power. It is THAT simple. (Except that it is not, because of the various confounding factors, such as EMP, differences in cam duration & timing, static comp ratio, charge temperature, that all add up to drop us below a simple doubling of power. But we still go up towards double the power, just because we're chucking in double the amount of fuel). All the compression ratio does on top of that is make it possible to burn the stuff the way we want it to and get the mechanical force out of onto the crank. If you have a turbo giving 1 bar of boost, and you have an intercooler that brings it down to near ambient (so we don't have to consider too much extra heat coming along for the ride) then you can compress the charge at nearly the same compression ratio as you would in an NA version of the engine, because the temperature rise associated with the compression event depends on the ratio of P2/P1, not simply the final pressure. In practice, we still need to keep the turbo'd engine's CR lower than we might on an NA version, by maybe a whole ratio point, because it's not just the temperature rise that can lead to detonation. There's a lot of blah blah involved in that, and it is EXCRUCIATINGLY well documented in millions of words on the subject already, so I'm not even going to try. But what is important is that your simple arithmetic leading you to this psi value or that psi value is not the correct way to approach it.

This, on my VC Commodore back in the early 90s. Drove home from my girlfriend's place, about 70km, in about 25 minutes**. Got home to see this eerie glow coming out from between the spokes of the Dragways at the rear of the car. Brake drums were at yellow heat. Never missed a beat after that, for years. **Yes, average speed on that trip was usually >160 km/h.

You can't edit any posts until you reach god level. You have to ask the mod team to do such work.

The wire that goes to the igniter for coil 1, now needs to go straight to coil 1. I think you can work the rest of the pattern out.

My brake shoes are nearly 30 years old and still fine. They are a handbrake. If the car doesn't roll downhill, they're working. They certainly shouldn't do any work at all in a normal life.

Nissan Australia wanted their cars to be this way and have those things. Nissan Japan wanted something different. Happens all the time with all cars. it's just that we don't give a shit about Pulsars, etc.

No. No it won't. That is, a 10.5:1 NA will not beat a 9.5:1 turbo running 1 bar of boost. Reason? The turbo is stuffing TWICE as much mixture into the cylinder, then compressing it and burning it. It will make nearly double the power just because of that. Think about that for a bit before delving into unnecessary arithmetic that is based on a wrong premise.

Slap, what Ben said is the truth. BMEP is a function of dynamic compression ratio which is made up of boost + static compression ratio (and also a component of cam timing/duration/pulse tuning, etc etc that make cylinder fill less than 100%, 100% or greater than 100% at different engine speeds). More than one way to skin the cat. Either way the cat is equally pissed off.

It's not going to affect how the car revs. It's just not.

No, you didn't listen to what I said. RB20s are not RB25s. The RB25 uses the analog output of its TPS (That's the potentiometer) for setting the idle point. And the correct voltage setting for that is ~0.45v. The RB20 DOES NOT use the potentiometer of the TPS for any function. The pot is only for the transmission computer. The RB20 uses the TPS's switch. A digital switch. On, off. There is no 0.45 volts associated with that. It is a simple click decision. If you look closely at the TPS you will note that there are two connectors. One for the ECU and one for the TCU. In a manual car, the TCU one is not even really connected to anything. As to whether there is a wiring problem with your IACV....there could be, but that is impossible to internet diagnose. Dirty/seized up is always far more likely than a wiring problem unless someone clumsy has been buggering around with it.

RB20s do not use the analog output from the TPS for the ECU. They really only use the closed position switch for the idle position. The potentiometer on them is for the TCU. The idle switch should be set so that it changes state just as you start moving the throttle away from closed. If you bend over the idling engine and you manually move the throttle bellcrank, at the very very first movement of it, the ECU should double pulse the injectors. If you hear that at that point in the rotation, it is set correctly. The trick is to set it too high, so you can tell that it is doing it, then adjust it down from there. You MUST have the IACV working, otherwise it will stall coming to a halt. Take it off, dismantle it and clean it with solvent.

More compression is better than less compression. It is not 1986 any more. 10:1 is not too much to aim for, with modern fuels. It would be wrong to assume that the NA Neo piston is as good as the turbo one. It might be, but it might not. The 25DET Neo also has RB26 rods in it, which the NA certainly won't. I wouldn't be doing any mix'n'match without getting suitable custom pistons. ~9.5:1 would be ideal.