GTSBoy

I just quote the Rolling Stones. Paint it black.

Hell yeah. It's not as if the path from front to rear is particularly squirrelly or otherwise difficult.

Yeah, well, it's not as though anyone is ever going to buy one of those noisy f**kers and put it into a new installation when there are better pumps that are near silent for less money from Ti.

Hmm. I should have thought of the clutch bleeding issue. It should be #1 thought for "can't select gears". As to "sounds like the top".....have you actually gone out with the stethoscope and tried to pin it down any more than that? And, buy or borrow a timing light, and set the timing properly.

Use a 2' length of hose (that's 2 foot, not 2 inches) as a stethoscope to localise the source of the ticking. From cam covers? From exhaust or turbo manifold gasket? From injectors? From lower down in the engine? Etc. Use a timing light to set the timing. Put Redline Lightweight Shockproof in the box. It's not the very best thing for the box, but it will take a box that refuses to engage a gear with other oil, and make it engage a gear. I had to put it in when I installed the R33 box I have in my car. It would not select ANY gear when running. Smurf jizz made it work. That was >10 years ago and I still use it. I'm stuck with it now. Failing that - rebuild the box.

Well, no. It's an 023, which is pretty similar to an 040. Although it is hard to tell from the specs, as given.

Hmm. Maybe the (other thing I forgot about!) Haltech removes at least some, if not all, of the problem I described. I guess there is still the possibility of getting it wrong if the AC is set up/wired up for the Haltech as if it was in an R34 (simply because it's on a Neo), and that's playing foul with the R32 AC computer.

I just put 2 and 2 together. This is a Neo converted R32. The Neo ECU (in concert with the R34's AC controller) runs the AC quite differently to how the R32 ECU and AC controller do it. If you just drop it all in, it won't work. There is some tricky wiring required, including changing to the pressure switch that the Neo controllers want to see. I don't know what it is, because mine was done by a guru. It was a year or so after I did that transplant before he worked out what needed to be done.

You are perhaps suggesting that it is not a super car? Well....it's not an AU.

Excuse me for butting in....but which part of ADHD can be considered a superpower? I would have though it far more likely that some ASD comorbidity is more likely to be contributing to an ability to hyperfocus on something. ADHD being aimed somewhat in the other direction. My shed looks like your shed. My whiteboard list of unfinished projects has entries going back 15 years. I know what you're talking about - I just struggle to connect ADHD to the results being discussed.

No R32 GTSt had 15" wheels. 205/55-16 was standard GTSt fare. 4.36:1 is standard R32 turbo auto diff. I think the manual was too, not 4.11. 4.11 and 4.08 were R33 namual and auto respectively.

Single 3.5", 5" metal body cat, centre offset oval muffler in the middle, large rear oval muffler straight through.

Yeah, but at eye watering prices.

10 years older than an R32 though.

Don't bother. The poor little RB20 doesn't make enough gas flow to challenge the flow capabilities of even the littlest cat, and you won't make any extra power, and all you'll do it soot up your rear bumper. Plus....is Malta not runing under Euro regs?

Yeah, just about any self adhesive foam strip will do. The darker the better, because you'll probably hate the look of the typical dark grey that is used in construction. Have a look on eBay and AliExpress also. You might find something more appropriate.

1. There are no real performance benefits. It sounds different, and as the pipes are not as large diameter you can claw back some undercar clearance or run lower (if that's your thing). 2. Twin pipes, offering exactly the same cross sectional area as a single pipe** will have higher pressure drop - so will not flow as well. That's because there is more surface area of wall per cross sectional pipe area, hence more frictional losses. ** But of course, it is almost impossible to get 2 pipes that are exactly the same XS area as a given typical single pipe. eg, 2x2" is not the same as 1x 3", although it is close. If the 2x pipes add up to less XS area than the single - it will just be flat out worse. If the 2x pipes add up to a bit more than the single, then it might come out as a wash. If the 2x pipes are substantially more XS area than the single, then it will probably flow a little better. 3. No. Why would there be? What have cats got to do with boost creep?*** ***But for f**ks' sake, please run a cat. 4. If you want.

Wow! It looks like those photos were taken in 1989. I don't think I've ever seen an R32 so high off the ground before. Straight out of the brochure! There's all sort of typical mods you could do - wheels, lowering, body kit, etc etc..... but I'd be tempted to leave it like that.

ROFL

Oof. Could be worse I guess. I suppose they haven't put any effort into ally suspension parts or CF panels, seats, etc. So they could probably pull about half of that back out of the car. Not like a bunch of other EVs that already have CF everything and roll the scales at ~2t.

Well, that would be easier to arrange. Simply downsize the battery pack to be just large enough to deliver the current requirement for the run. No need for a 500km range if you only have to be able to do 3/4 of a lap slowly and 1/4 of a lap at full (?)noise(?).

Yeah...but NA Mercedes V12.

Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.

Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.

Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.