GTSBoy

Pay careful attention to the kinematics of that upper arm. The bloody things don't work properly even on a normal stock height R32. Nissan really screwed the pooch on that one. The fixes have included changing the hole locations on the bracket to change the angle of the inner pivot (which was fairly successful but usually makes it impossible to install or remove the arm without unbolting the bracket from the tower, which sucks) and various swivelling upper arm designs. ALL the swivelling upper arm designs that look like a capital I (with serifs) suck. All of them. Some of them are in fact terribly unsafe. Even the best one of them (the old UAS design) shat itself in short order on my car. The only upper arm that works as advertised and is pretty safe is the GKTech one. But it is high maintenance on a street car. I'm guessing that a 600HP car as (stupidly, IMO) low as you are going is not going to be a regular driver. So the maintenance issues on suspension parts are probably not going to be a problem. But you really must make sure that however your fairly drastically modded suspension ends up, that the upper arms swing through an arc that wants to keep the inner and outer bolts parallel. If the outer end travels through an arc that makes that end's bolt want to skew away from parallel with the inner bolt, you will build up enormous binding and compressing forces in the bushes, chew them out and hate life. The suspension compliance can actually be dominated by the bush binding, not the spring rate! It may be the case that even something like the GKTech arm won't work if your suspension kinematics become too weird, courtesy of all the cut and shut going on. Although you at least say there's no binding now, so maybe you're OK. Seeing as you're in the build phase, you could consider using R33/4 type upper arms (either that actual arm, OEM or aftermarket) or any similar wishbone designed to suit your available space, so alleviate the silliness of the R32 design. Then you can locate your inner pivots to provide the correct kinematics (camber gain on compression, etc).

I would suggest if you don't like advertising your home address, that the floorplan should be removed, because a reverse image search should turn up the listing. PM me if you ant it gone.

I think that might be in the question. He is going very low, and I think the standard GTR ones are simple tripod joints (like the rear NA/S chassis ones), not proper CVs (like R chassis turbo/GTR ones). Proper CVs take the misalignment better than tripods.

Done

Nah, new members can't post pics until they reach a certain post count. If I get a chance I'll promote you to full member, if @Prank or someone else doesn't get there first.

I'm so far behind in the jobs I have to do at both work and home (including car) that I have become immortal. There's simply no way that I can die now.

Yeah, I'm not interested in wetting the carpets, and I don't care about brown dirt/dust that lives deep in the pile or underneath. It's not like I crawl around on them in my birthday suit or eat dropped food off them (because there is never any open food in my car). The seats are alcantara (cheap Chinese imitation alcantara, to be sure!) with barely 1" of foam pad behind the surface. That's not getting wet either. Any car that I would be happy to get the interior wet, I would not care to put the effort into.

I think even the "commercial" capacity ones that you would hire from supermarkets etc wouldn't have the capacity to do all that much in one go. I will go through half a dozen tanks of solution and dumps/rinses of the waste tank for one little 2 seat sofa. Or similar for one 6 footish rug. That's the price you pay for something small that only takes up a bit of cupboard space, instead of something that takes up the entire laundry cupboard or half the shed.

I've got one (not the car one, the domestic spot cleaner one, which is basically the same jobbie) and have driven it hard for hours and hours at a time. Grimy sofas, 6' floor rugs, etc. I'd blame your specific example rather than the whole category. I haven't used mine in the car, because.... you know, it's my car. So there is no-one else's ball sweat in the driver's seat, there's no kid food/drink spills or hand prints inside because they've never had an opportunity to put them there. You know, basic, standard Skyline rules.

Probably because they couldn't, because the use of the variable resistor to create a "signal" in the ECU is managed by the ECU's circuitry. The only way that VDO could do it would be if they made a "smart" sensor that directly created the 0-5V signal itself. And that takes us back to the beginning. Well, in that case, you could do the crude digital (ie, binary, on or off) input that I mentioned before, to at least put a marker on the trace. If you pressed the button only at a series of known integer temperatures, say every 2°C from the start of your range of interest up to whatever you can manage, and you know what temperature the first press was at, then you'd have the voltage marked for all of those temperatures. And you can have more than one shot at it too. You can set the car up to get the oil hot (bypass oil coolers, mask off the air flow to oil coolers, and/or the radiator, to get the whole engine a bit hotter, then give it a bit of curry to get some measurements up near the top of the range. On the subject of the formula for the data you provided, I did something different to Matt's approach, and got a slightly different linear formula, being Temp = -22.45*V + 118.32. Just a curve fit from Excel using all the points, instead of just throwing it through 2 points. A little more accurate, but not drastically different. Rsquared is only 0.9955 though, which is good but not great. If you could use higher order polynomials in the thingo, then a quadratic fit gives an excellent Rsquared of 0.9994. Temp = 2.1059*V^2 - 34.13*V + 133.27. The funny thing is, though, that I'd probably trust the linear fit more for extrapolation beyond the provided data. The quadratic might get a bit squirrely. Hang on, I'll use the formulae to extend the plots.... It's really big so you can see all the lines. I might have to say that I think I really still prefer the quadratic fit. It looks like the linear fit overstates the temperature in the middle of the input range, and would pretty solidly understate what the likely shape of the real curve would say at both ends.

Yes. Probably, given that there is only access from the bottom end of it, go with a drill bit. Don't start too small. 7 or 8mm is probably the right size. You want something that can make a big enough hole to do some damage, but not so bit that it clashes with the steel or binds up and breaks your wrist. A slow speed is probably a good idea too. Once the rubber is destroyed, you then have to get the crush tube off the stud, which will be the whole heat/oil/cutting exercise all over again, but this time with the need to strictly avoid damaging the stud (any further than the corrosion might already have done.

FFP is a step backwards. Would need to add a supercharger to offset the negatives. Hmmmm....

There is likely more action on FB groups (I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't go near a Meta business if I was on fire and they were the only way to put it out), but from what I gather it is mostly flogs. The real old knowledge is here. Many hundreds of thousands of posts covering almost everything you will want to know, and if you can't find what you're looking for or if the query is too current to be covered by historic posts, then just ask. Can't help you with Melbs workshops, but someone will be along to give some advice.

Not directly, but I measured the air temperature coming out the back (car running on dyno) and it was a small flow with some decent temperature in it compared to the temperature measured behind the radiator. Too many years ago to remember what the numbers were. Couldn't really quantify the flow rate though, so couldn't calculate a heat transfer rate, but my conclusion was that there was decent heat transfer to the air. Bro science, for sure. And granted, I will acknowledge that there are hot head/cam cover surfaces in there too, but they are only at ~100°C or less. I really should do it again, with my fine TC taped down onto the coils, with the cover on and off. But getting the cover off is a enough of a pain in the butt that I'm not going to do it just for fun.

The cooling is actually better with the cover on. The timing gears/belt does a good job of pumping some air in there. That's why the back of the timing cover has those louvres in it. With the cover off the air just goes away. With the cover on, it is forced to flow all the way to the back. It's still all very hot, but it is a little cooler with the cover on.

Didna think of putting some spacers under the cover? Lift it up 3-5 mm?

Yup, I'm on the bandwagon. That explains the excessively high boost and the slow control response.

You'd want to cap off the re-entry back into the dump too. Just something flat that can be held on by the Vband.

Yes, well, keep in mind that the air is intake air, which equal boost + possible oil. If there is a fine deposition of oil/scunge that then gets hot and carbonises, it could look just like that. Probably shouldn't be leaking. Might just be normal for that product. Hard to know if it is relevant.

Either the WG is reaching full opening, or it is not. The "it is not" case could only occur if there was not enough time available to swing the valve fully open during that boost event. I would consider that to be unlikely, as this is a commercial product that is in use elsewhere, so it really should work. But in your case, because there is definitely SOMETHING wrong, it should not be assumed that things like that are working as they should. You should put a video camera where it can see the actuator (if at all possible) during a run to see how far it is moving.

I think you're mostly on the ball there. With the straight gate, I suspect the weight of the spring will determine how quickly the gate can close, when not run with active pressure drive on both sides of the diaphragm. Otherwise, with drive on both sides of the diaphragm, you could almost go without a spring at all, only needing one to make sure that the thing was actually closed while completely off boost and not having pressure available to drive it closed. Butterfly valves have mostly symmetric loading when there is flow going through them, meaning that the gas hitting the upstream part of the blade is balanced by the gas hitting the downstream part of the blade, which means you don't need actuator torque to overcome any non-symmetric flow induced loads. But the gas flow does impart a purely normal load against the shaft, which transfers into the bush/bearing at each end of the shaft and does increase the torque required to make the shaft turn. Only a little, but it is there. I have no feeling for the amount of force involved in a WG application, but it certainly could make an argument for a decent spring weight being required. But all of this is just peripheral to the actual problem here.

This

You just need a datalogger of some sort. A handheld oscilloscope could do it, because it will make the trace visible on screen, so you can look at the peak, or whatever you need to look at. And there are cheap USB voltage loggers available too. You could get a 2 channel one and press a button to feed voltage to the second channel at points that you want to check the sensor voltage, when you knew what the guage was saying, for example.

While that sounds reasonable, this is definitely a boost control problem, but the real question is why are you having the boost control problem? Which is why I pondered the idea that there's a problem at ~4000rpm related to head flow. In that instance, you are not yet under boost control - it's still ramping up and the wastegate is yet to gain authority. So, I'm thinking that if the wastegate is not yet open enough to execute control, but the compressor has somehow managed ot make a lot of flow, and the intake side of the head doesn't flow as well as the exhaust side (more on that later), then presto, high MAP (read that as boost overshoot). I have a number of further thoughts. I use butterfly valves in industrial applications ALL THE TIME. They have a very non-linear flow curve. That is to say that there is a linear-ish region in the middle of their opening range, where a 1% change in opening will cause a reasonably similar change in flow rate, from one place to another. So, maybe between 30% open and 40% open, that 1% change in opening gives you a similar 2% change in flow. (That 2% is pulled out of my bum, and is 2% of the maximum flow capacity of the valve, not 2% of the flow that happens to be going through the valve at that moment). That means that at 30% open, a 1% change in opening will give you a larger relative flow increase (relative to the flow going through the valve right then) compared to the same increment in opening giving you the same increment in flow in outright flow units. But at 40% opening, that extra 2% of max flow is relatively less than 1/2 the increase at 30% opening. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if it doesn't because it's not the main point anyway. Below and above the linear-ish range in the middle, the opening-flow curve becomes quite...curved. Here's a typical butterfy valve flow curve. Note that there is a very low slope at the bottom end, quite steep linear-ish slope in the middle, then it rolls off to a low slope at the top. This curve shows the "gain" that you get from a butterfly valve as a function of opening%. Note the massive spike in the curve at 30%. That's the point I was making above that could be hard to understand. So here's the point I'm trying to make. I don't know if a butterfly valve is actually a good candiate for a wastegate. A poppet valve of some sort has a very linear flow curve as a function of opening %. It can't be anything else but linear. It moves linearly and the flow area increases linearly with opening %. I can't find a useful enough CV curve for a poppet valve that you could compare against the one I showed for the butterfly, but you can pretty much imagine that it will not have that lazy, slow increase in flow as it comes off the seat. It will start flowing straight away and increase flow very noticeably with every increase in opening%. So, in your application, you're coming up onto boost, the wastegate is closed. Boost ramps up quite quickly, because that's really what we want, and all of a sudden it is approaching target boost and the thing needs to open. So it starts opening, and ... bugger all flow. And it opens some more, and bugger all more flow. And all the while time is passing, boost is overshooting further, and then finally the WG opens to the point where the curve starts to slope upwards and it gains authority amd the overshoot is brought under control and goes away, but now the bloody thing is too open and it has to go back the other way and that's why you get that bathtub curve in your boost plot. My position here is that the straight gate is perhaps not the good idea it looks like. It might work fine in some cases, and it might struggle in others. Now, back to the head flow. I worry that the pissy little NA Neo inlet ports, coupled with the not-very-aggressive Neo turbo cam, mean that the inlet side is simply not matched to the slightly ported exhaust side coupled with somewhat longer duration cam. And that is not even beginning to address the possibility that the overlap/relative timing of those two mismatched cams might make that all the worse at around 4000rpm, and not be quite so bad at high rpm. I would be dropping in at least a 260 cam in the inlet, if not larger, see what happens. I'd also be thinking very hard about pulling the straight gate off, banging a normal gate on there and letting it vent to the wild, just as an experiment.

Jason should have shown a real viscosity vs temp chart. All the grades have very little viscosity difference at full operating temperature.