GTSBoy

Erk. I just realised a typo. "not" in the above should be "now".

Besides which, it is not important to know whether to hook port 1 up to the fuel tank, or the windscreen washer line. it is important to understand how the 3 port valve works. And then you can work out where to connect the ports all by yourself. A 3 port solenoid valve has two states. Powered and non-powered. In the at-rest, non-powered state, 2 of the ports are connected. In the powered state, one of those ports is not connected to the 3rd port. The one that is common to both those connections is called.....the common port. This one gets connected to the boost source. The one that is connected to common when it is not powered gets connected to the wastegate actuator. This way, if the valve is doing nothing, you get wastegate spring base boost. The one that is connected to common when powered is the vent. Vent to atmosphere or back to the post-AFM inlet as you see fit. You can work out which connections occur when by just trying to blow through the ports powered and unpowered. Helpfully, the MAC valve also usually has a little diagram on the side that shows exactly how it works.

Dude, this is what PM is for, so your phone number isn't stuck on the internet.

Bah. I still design my stuff to handle more than the expected minima.

Their suspension is to blame. It is possible to make high quality dampers. They just didn't bother.

Good work. Nothing better than having to spray seemingly random jumper and other settings at a piece of equipment because the manufacturer's doco is crap.

MCA and Shockworks are the usual recommendations. MCA tend towards higher spring rates and softer ARBs, which obviously works for them, but does not align with everyone's opinion. I'm not sure whether the Shockworks guys have a similar preferential leaning to or away from stiff ARBs. These preferences do need to be taken into consideration when looking at buying stuff, because your own driving style and preferences may or may not work so well against the opposite preference. Or some relearning would be required, etc etc. I think MCA is more of a case of "I'll take option X from the product lines offered" and Shockworks might be more toward the "Tell us what you want and we'll drag it together for you". MCA obviously can offer to do more custom stuff also. I'm really speaking out of turn here though, because I haven't dealt with either of them. I'm running on Sydneykid B6s and Kings Springs and big Whiteline bars. So I'm rolling around on a billy cart compared to what I could have if I spent a bit more with either of those crowds.

Yes well. They're 6/8 rates yeah? Coupled with the fairly nasty valving in BC coilovers, it's no surprise that the ride can be jarring. You can run rates that are double that with better dampers, and not complain.

From a tuning perspective, there is no difference in pressing pgup or pgdn on a cell reading ms or % or some arbitrary index number (ie 0-255). Who cares? Number get bigger, fuel gets morer, 3D view of map gets taller, colours change appropriately.

What you talking about Willis? Volumetric efficiency is not a requirement to implement speed-density. So, the outputs of the injection table are in raw ms. So what? So have almost all older "speed-density" ECUs going back into the 1980s. We all used to tune the by adjusting ms values in the fuelling table. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the ECU is using speed-density to work out where on the map it is. Speed is engine speed. No reason to keep talking about that. Density is density - if you want it to be in units that relate directly to density. But if you don't want to, you can just use MAP in pressure units with a temperature compensation. You can apply the temperature compensation before you go reference the map axes, or you could do it afterwards, depending on the way your brain works and whether you care if the load axis being not quite right is going to upset people (which it would be not quite right if you applied the temp correction to the pressure before you looked up). The pressure, once temperature compensated, is absolutely equivalent to an outright density number, and serves the purpose of looking up the fuelling map as well as any other load index. There are no calculations required by the ECU or by the tuner to work out what that manifold pressure at that rpm needs in terms of fuelling. That's what the dyno and the wideband are for. The fuelling model is a function of reality. Back in the early 90s we were tuning Microtech LTXs and the like, with psi on the load axis and a temperature correction applied to the resulting ms value that came out of the table. Was it speed-density? Well, not if you require your definition of speed-density to have actual density calculated and some sort of VE model exposed in a table. But was it using the density of the air in the manifold as the (effective) load index? You bet it was. The VE table is encapsulated in the raw ms values. Is a given cell at 90% VE? 95%? 112%? Dunno. Doesn't matter. It's at 10.7 ms and that's the right fuelling at that load point regardless of what the VE actually is.

The fracture pattern shows the force was a moment applied in the vertical plane (ie, the outer end of the steering up was being pushed up or down). I guess up from a cursory inspection. This would suggest one of a couple of things. Bad day at the foundry. I consider this unlikely, because I would consider it unlikely that both the left and right uprights on your car were made on a single or very rare bad day. Far more likely to come from different days, and therefore there should be many more reports of these failures. The people designing these bump correction tie rods are not considering the change in direction that forces are applied to the steering arms. Again it would seem unlikely as there should probably be more reports, and the steering arms are approximately square in cross section. You have been hitting things with the bottom end of them. Or a combo of all three? Plus other possibilities/factors?

Nothing next gen about that chat bot. Just as stupid as the existing ones!

The half moons don't have coolant behind them. They back onto the camshaft tunnels and have oil behind them. The previously mentioned welch plugs on the back of the engine could be it. It's a gearbox out job at the minimum, just to find out if you need to do them.

PR 2.3 vs PR 3.3 is mostly likely simply not understanding that you have to add atmospheric pressure to the boost number.

What? 2nd hand? $5.

Or the more obvious choice now of the actual Neo ECU. No point in going sideways to go forwards. And then you really want to Nistune it anyway.

Noting of course that Nistune is not an option in a 33 ECU.

Sorry. Didn't realise that was the plan. Use the Neo ECU?

The only sensible option is to use the loom that suits the engine. There are sensor plug differences, and different sensors altogether.

** boom tish **

Just get the one you have resleeved?

Nothing wrong with Whiteline bushes. They wear out the same as any other urethane bush in suspension arm bushes. But they should last a long time in a static bush.

That cylinder is called the receiver dryer. It's a receiver (pressure vessel to provide some storage for a gas, although in this case it holds the refrigerant when it is in the liquid state) and it also has dessicant in it to absorb any water that manages to get into the system. The fact that you have circled and numbered (number 2) the pressure switch block to which the dryer connects suggests that you do not have any of those parts in your possession. In which case, I would suggest not bothering to try to get the correct parts. Just get a mobile air-con service guy to come out, make up whatever lines and connection fittings you need to install a generic dryer and pressure switch to your car.

If you want a highflow from HG (or anyone) you only need housings. Literally, the core can be completely shot. There is no point in buying a good condition, let alone new, turbo. In fact, if you just pay Tao a little extra, he will supply a set of housings from a blown turbo. But if you're not in possession of any turbo at all.....just buy a new HG turbo outright? I mean, it's not as if am HG highflow goes right back exactly where the stock turbo came from. The exhaust housing location is the same, but because the core is much smaller, the compressor housing moves backward, requiring changes to the inlet plumbing and all the oil and water lines. So, if you're going to do that, and have to pay for housings, you may as well just buy a different turbo.

Well, replacing a front bearing is not a "rebuild", nor does it trigger a need to rebuild everything in the gearbox. A dismantled gearbox with worn/aged parts can be put back together just fine. The only argument is whether the labour to do so is then considered to be wasted compared to doing a rebuild as well.