GTSBoy

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.

Welcome. This is not really true. We have a whole forum here just for the NA shitboxen. And they are not very different from the turbo shitboxen. Just weaker brakes and gearboxes, and no LSD, for the most part.

The ECU does care - it runs the engine as two banks of 3 wrt O2 trimming. So you have to give it the right one. Um....look at the engine bay pictures in the GTR manual? I think you can make them out there. I think the physical wiring diagram might also help.... Actually, I just looked at the engine bay wiring diag. It clear shows the shapes of the connectors. I'd say that R means rear. According to the rest of that diagram, pin 2 of the R one turns up at terminal 55 of the ECU. Which is.....the rear one.

That is not true. The R32 GTR wiring diagram is freely available and has been for literally 25 years. And you don't even actually need it because the situation is so simple that you literally only have to use the wire that runs to the original dash indicator. Your car has a problem. That problem is unique to your car. I assure you that if I went out and did it to my car right now, it would work.

Neo IACVs have water plumbed into/out of them to provide the heat to close the AAC. I am also unsure about vanilla 25s, but maybe the extra plumbing on that is water.

Easy solution to both of those. Put a split bit of garden hose on each one. Attractive and practical!

So I guess the next thing to do will be to discuss whether to create a new section of the forums to hold the library (boo hiss?), somewhat undoing the recent tidy up, or if there is a bolt on wiki module for Invision? (I must profess ignorance as to what has been done, what it might cost, etc. I have only briefly googled and seen discussion on adding it.) Or is a wiki even the best way to do what I'm talking about? It possibly isn't. Given that we're trying to re-display forum content, it probably needs to be presented as forum content in forum format, and a wiki would probably struggle with that. A wiki might still be the best way to do some other things, so I'll keep the idea simmering if we don't use it here. Back to the library as "part of the forums". Would we do a single new library? Or put a library thread in each section? Pluses and minuses for each of these, surely. Would we do as I originally suggested, and make the first post in the library be the total of the library, with any reply posts just being the inputs and suggestions I originally posited? Or would we allow posts to accumulate one after the other, each containing additions to the library? Maybe the first post is still an index or something. It's all sounding horribly more manual and messy than my original brain fart. But I hope there's some other good ideas floating around - because every time I come up with a new one of my own I immediately see problems with it.

Nah. Not trumpet enough. You need something that increases diameter towards the exit for that full shithorn effect. Tall orange witch's hats might do the trick?

It's not a dumb question. I was circling this idea myself. User error is always possible!

Nope. The seal is in the drive. A new cable would just fill up and continue to convey oil to the speedo head. To check if this is what is happening, take the cluster out, dismantle the speedo and have a look. You probably don't even have to dismantle it. If there is oil coming up the cable, the drive into the speedo will be grossly greasy. I had to manually (and delicately) clean the gunk out of my speedo.

Yeah, my offer was more to show exactly how rough and ready the rig can be and still be useful. Youtube vids will definitely show cleaner setups. Same concept though.

I would guess the seal has gone down at the speedo drive and gearbox oil has crept up the drive cable sheath and fouled the speedo head.

H2 (for cars) will never happen. It's not reasonable for any number of reasons. It's also not reasonable for almost all of the industrial uses that the fanbois say that it will be used for, again for a large number of reasons. There are some cases where it will be good. But, even those will be massively hampered by the economics. The only way that H2 can be economic is if we somehow manage to get from where we are to the other side of the economic-valley-of-death in which no-one can operate. You need there to be sufficient renewable generated electricity to be available so that it is effectively free. Once you are there, you can do whatever the hell you want and hang the efficiency. But until you get there, the ever diminishing value of electricity makes it harder and harder to encourage businesses to build the new generation capacity, and they will simply stop investing in generation projects. (I kinda think there needs to be just government money spent on building the required capacity in a non-commercial way, similar to how the first fossil fueled grids were built, as national-government owned utilities. And probably some nuclear in there to start. But this all should have started 10-15 years ago to avoid the chasm of death that we face right now). Synth fuels will be much more likely, but will only occur is there is at least some renewable H2 production, because you need H2 to do it. And you need stacks of free (or at least extraordinarily cheap) energy because assembling molecules back into fuels is exactly the opposite process to burning the fuel, and the reason we burn fuels is because there is so much energy squeezed into each molecule. So you're somewhat subject to the same economic valley of death problem as above anyway. That is unless people are willing to pay the current equivalent of $5 or $6 per litre of petrol-ish liquid fuels. Can you imagine it? The squealing at $2 now is bad enough.

You reckon? I have to disagree. Notwithstanding that at some point we may all be forced to do this to our cars if we want to keep driving them, there is absolutely nothing about an electric-converted-previously-IC-car that is ever good. EVs that are built by OEMs on platforms that were originally IC already suck, let alone the shitty outcomes that result from doing it as a retro to something that was actually built as an IC car. This is because the platform really needs to be designed to house the battery in a useful place (ie, down as low as possible) and the motors are properly located relative to the wheels that they have to drive. Converted platforms already suck at this. But when you try to shove sufficient battery capacity into a previously IC car, you can't put it down on/in the floor, because that space doesn't exist. You can't find enough space where the fuel tank used to be (if it is an inboard fuel tank) and you don't want to hang it out behind the rear axle line if you had a rear fuel tank. And there's not enough space in the tunnel if you still want to use it for anything remotely like what it was originally used for. The engine bay is too big for a motor, and you'd really prefer that the motor for the rear wheels wasn't in the front engine bay anyway. And there's not enough room where the diff was for a proper man-sized E motor. And then.... there is the complete lack of soul and emotion that is provided by EVs. There are some cracking restomods out there. Like the Alfaholics GTA thingo. But it is petrol powered. Look at the alternative EV version of a GTA restomod by Totem. it is jaw droppingly beautiful. But by all reports is is objectively awful to drive, despite having 600 HP or something, simply because there is nothing there. It sounds like a sewing machine or a leaf blower. It should scream and wail and make the hairs on your neck stand up. Oh, and it's 1500 bloody kg in a car that was <900kg when new. GTRs are heavy enough as it is without pushing them up to 2tonnes worth of pork.

The only way to make that better is to weld on some bozozoku tips up past window height and roll with the cool kids.

It be 40°C outside lately. 10W60 is a good idea here. Well, certainly 10W50.