GTSBoy

At least it's right side up! Shit time of year for things like this, heh? I'm running on half my house's GPOs, because I have a fault in the wiring on one circuit and the electricians are all on holiday. Just put a for sale sign on it and walk away? It might be a better outcome.

Go through this lot, comparing arm part numbers with equivalent pages for other cars (ie R34) and see if they are same enough. https://www.amayama.com/en/catalogs/nissan/cedric/10-sedan-right-y34-1999-1317/chassis-and-transmission-7/rear-suspension-chassis-538

Yeah, you need the right rotors to go with the 4 pot calipers and the rotors are all drilled 5 stud. You can buy blanks (sometimes, if you know how, and are lucky) and get them drilled to whatever pattern you want, but I suspect that this is not your path forward here, as you would also need to be changing the MC, and the hoses, and so on. If you were in Oz I would just tell you to take it to a local brake workshop and get them to rebuild the calipers. They should be able to source the required parts, rechrome pistons if required, etc etc. If you were in some other buttfack country it might be difficult to make such a recommendation because there probably is no such thing as a brake workshop/chain in many such places. As you're in Fl, I have no idea what the mechanical landscape for specialist automotive looks like, but I would be horrified to hear that it had all disappeared from the landscape. So, go find the brake equivalent of Midas and let them do it.

It's impossible to see/say what the deal with the chassis rail is. It's no biggie if it needs to be cut out and new metal folded up to replace it. It's just a lot of work. Can be uneconomic to repair if it's an insurance job, but when it is being done for lover, it is perfectly doable. But as I said, impossible to see what it is. The "A pillar" damage, I presume is the bit that worries you the most. Looks like it would all be beatable. But it would likely take someone with the knack to get it straight and true, so that everything is in the right place and the door doesn't start hanging funny, etc.

From what they say, the pedal weight should be less than most comparably rated clutches. So.... perhaps you shouldn't worry? The lower end of their range is supposed to be stock pedal weight or lighter, and the race end is supposed to be "surprisingly light", from what I gathered from (likely) the same vids.

Yeah, completely valid point. I was just trying to answer the other half of the question. I'm pretty sure that the R34 NA boxes were pull clutch, because I put one such box in my R32 without any need to juggle clutch types.

Your video shows it working as it should. Forward is high beam. Middle is low beam. Back is flash high beam. Normal normal. If the RH low beam out is not because the globe has died, then you need to take the binnacle shroud off, remove the main headlight switch, disassemble it, and clean the contacts, to get it working. It's very common for that contacts to get all blacked up.

Meaning R34 RB25DET box. As I don't think they put a push clutch on the NA (smaller = RB20DET) manuals in R34s.

If you want to fit the turbo calipers you would ideally also put the matching master cylinder on - there's a bit more piston area in the 4 pistons than there in the twin pistons. You can just rebuild your calipers. Caliper rebuild has been the first option since disc brakes were invented. Outright replacement is a modern disease. You make no mention of what country you are in. Finding replacements might be 10x harder than ordering in the required rebuild kit.

Yeah. Most people don't worry about it, and the difference may not be big enough for most people to put any effort into it. But the simplest rule for turbines is that they work on pressure difference. The more volume you have downstream to expand into, the more the gas can and will expand, and that is good for both response and total power. If you have to neck back down to a smaller system after the main length of the dump, it will still be "better" than only expanding up to the final size of the exhaust. It is really really hard to quantify what that difference is though, and it is probably different for all possible combinations. Might be insignificant on smaller turbos, for example. Gases don't like to expand into steeply increasing cone angles. You get separation from the wall, causing recirculations back along the wall (ie, the turbulence of which you speak, but I prefer not to refer to it as turbulence, preferring to describe the actual flow phenomena being observed, because all automotive flows are in the turbulent regime). These recirculations waste energy and reduce the effective cone angle anyway. Having said all that, a steep cone angle is better than either starting at the final size (ie, 2" outlet dropping straight into a 3" pipe with a big 1/2" step all around) or never growing beyond the outlet size at all (ie 2" outlet to 2" pipe all the way down the dump). You need the extra volume more than you need to avoid "turbulence". Some will argue, and they are probably somewhat correct, that the flow exiting the turbine is a rotating flow and so it will fling out to occupy a wider cone angle than the "ideal" small angles near 10° anyway. And....that's probably at least part of the reason that you can get away with reasonably poor exit arrangements. Good old Corky Bell's book Maximum Boost showed the test results (from about a million years ago) where they definitely got better results with nicer expansion cones than without. It's worth putting in whatever effort can be put in. Yeah, but probably only a little benefit. But this is likely to be a bad design simply because a 3" turbine outlet is really really really going to want at least a 4" dump, preferably even bigger. Yup. 4". 3.5 would be a waste of time cf a 3". OK, maybe slightly better. But of you're going to the effort to fab an expansion, it might as well be for something worthwhile. Nah. I don't rate any CFD software unless it is driven by a PhD expert in modelling. We use Ansys Fluent at work, which is right at the very apex of the CFD heap, and it is a pile of shit that needs to be massaged and cajoled and occasionally beaten to get it to work. It breaks with nearly ever version release. Things that used to work stop working, etc etc. Having said that, we push Fluent to the very edge of its capabilities in many areas (much combustion, radiation heat transfer, multi-phase flows, etc). Our new machine is 128 cores with umpteen gazzillion gigs of RAM, costs $50k or so and chews a kilowatt all day every day. And our sims take days to converge, and that's just for steady state modelling. We don't even consider doing time-varying simulations. They add about 2 orders of magnitude to the solution time (ie, we could be at a single one for months!). I say all that because I suspect that to model the outflow of a turbine you'd probably want to be doing a non-steady state sim, because the rotating turbine is a dynamic element in the mesh. But the fact that it spins at >100k rpm is something confounding to me. You'd have to do ridiculously small time steps to capture anything out of it. I'm probably teh wrong person to be thinking about this though, because I am not the PhD CFD engineer. I'm the practical hands on aerodynamicist/process eng who has to talk to the client on the one side and the modelling geeks on the other. You can play with "free" CFD using on-line stuff. The stuff that SuperFastMatt uses for his car aero is probably as easy as it gets. The problem with CFD is that it is easy to set up a sim, run it, get results and believe them. but there are so many caveats and traps that the Colourful Flashy Diagrams are often just that. For example: The usual turbulence model people use is k-epsilon. That works for many situations, but it doesn't handle swirl at all well. It damps a swirling flow out where it would persist in the real world. You have to use k-omega for swirling flows. But when you do that, you then take on other compromises. And then you can use more sophisticated turbulence models to try to get around these compromises and then you end up using RANS or something that will take 10-100x as long to converge. And on it goes. There is so much skill involved in grid design choices, grid/mesh refinement, knowing how to set boundary conditions in the absence of good data, etc etc etc.

With the switch in hand it is trivial to work out how it works. The power comes in on one wire, goes out via the low beam side when it is in the at-rest position. Goes out via the high beam wire when pushed forward. Goes out via (I think) both LB 7 HB wires when pulled back to flash. By probing the connectivity between pins in these 3 different positions, you can work out what is what (if it is working correctly) or that it is broken (if you cannot make any sense of it) in some way. Plus, the wiring diagram is freely available in the R32 workshop manual and in the better scans that I uploaded to SAU a couple of years ago, which can be searched up fairly easily. And no, I'd be pretty sure that no-one has ever had this problem, because it doesn't sound like something that could occur via a failure. It sounds like something that would occur at the hands of a hamfisted previous owner. It might be as simple as the loom connectors are crossed over onto the main and low beam globes behind the headlights.

The ideal dump pipe is closer to the reference and further from what you were wanting to do. The important thing to understand is that it is nowhere near possible to get a "good" dump pipe into almost any car. So it just becomes a matter of how bad you are willing to accept it being. The ideal is for the turbine outlet to be circular (ie, no integrated wastegates here) and for the dump to expand at a nice shallow (say, 7-11°) cone up to the very largest pipe you can get. For a ~2" turbine outlet, a 4" big end is nice. And that should be straight, obviously, because it's very difficult to make the sort of conical expansion being described here also be a bend. And having a bend in the middle of the conical expansion is likely to interfere with the way that the cone should work anyway. And then any bends after the end of the conical expansion should be as small angle and/or long radius as possible, so a pair of 45s is defo better than a single 90, but there's only dust and grains of difference between those anyway. But if you do the maths/sketching, you will see that such a cone takes up a huge amount of length. So unless you want to punch through the firewall and drop the dump between the passenger's knees....you have to do something else. So the "best" compromise is usually somewhere between what you want to do and the ideal, and that is why a lot of aftermarket dumps go straight toward the firewall and then straight down. They are prioritising the exit development length over the rest of it. Well, so long as they actually implement some sort of conical expansion in there. This is why a good turbo installation should also consider whether to angle the turbo upward a little so that the exhaust points down. Makes all this a little easier to fit - at the cost of perhaps making the inlet side less pleasant to plumb.

That's the price of dealing with the (unts in SA. They suck here now.

What level of "how" are you asking for? Are you wanting help at the level of understanding the wiring diagram, or help sourcing loom plugs? Or what?

I spent >$1K at Spicers getting my 2-piece rebuilt with replaceable unis. It's just the cost of doing Skyline business these days.

No. My brother-in-law runs a performance workshop here in Oz and he ordered them for a customer, through Bilstein's Oz agency (whoever they are). Linear springs with 5.8 at the front and Bilsteins would be....very firm for the road. You wouldn't want to go past ~22mm solid front ARB, would be my guess. As to choices of various coilovers in place of stock format dampers/struts.....I would say if you were going to do it, I would just go direct to KW and see what they can do. There would be approximately 3/10th of bugger all chance that they could not cobble something together for you. With KW in such close proximity, I would never choose BC. I see BC as 2nd tier suspension, at best. Or, you could contact MCA here in OZ and get a set ready to go for the R chassis, for sensible money. And they are top tier suspension. (OK, "top tier" in context. They are still probably Asian made dampers, but they are specced correctly and quality controlled appropriately. And they are supported properly). But you'd be mad to do this given KW and the small effort required to get something put together, for the local support, if nothing else.

I've just been speaking to someone who knows. Kings Springs will special order springs that are no longer on catalogue, so long as they have made them before. Bilstein will special make dampers that are NLA also. Apparently A set of 4 were sent to Australia to satisfy a special order for R32. 9 month lead time though.

Just buy some S13 rears and hold them next your R32 ones. Then decide if you're keeping them or moving them on.

Sadly it appears that KW do jack all for Skylines. That's not to say that they couldn't work something up. If I was there I would definitely wheel the car into their premises for a look see.

The lower arm pivot points are the points where the lower arms are bolted to the subframe and....pivot.

Yuh, she's pretty simple when you study it for a few minutes. When the hazard switch is off, the power to the indicators is fed from one fuse, across the first 2 terminals to make power available to the flasher unit, and that then gets sent to either the left or the right lights according to the flasher switch position. When the hazard switch is on, the power from the indicator feed is replaced by the dedicated feed from the next terminal down, gets sent out to the flasher unit, then comes back into the hazard switch where it gets forwarded on to both the left and right lights. You can tell what terminal is what by checking for what contacts change between switching on and off. The three that are common when on are the light feeders. The three that swap inlets with a common outlet are the power supplies. The other terminals are for the local (night) light, one of which is earth and the other is fed from the parker position on the headlight switch. These could be reversed without problem, assuming it's a globe and not an LED.

The wiring diagrams are in the workshop manuals. R33 Sadly, I don't have the R34 wiring diagram handy, but....given how little different most of the 3/4 are, I wouldn't expect there to be any difference in the hazzard switch.

Why buy a 2nd hand fuel pump, when a new Ti Automotive pump would be 10x better?

I'd start a new thread with a clear explanation of your problem, rather than force prospective helpers to re-read an old thread and fish through whatever has been said in it to work out what your issue is.

Hah! A guy with 6 posts is not checking his notifications from a decade ago.