XGTRX

You can get gaba cheap from bulknutients.com.au. together with arginine and glutamine I found it worked well. Good luck.

Non road worthy items would be Battery..need to be properly mounted...easy fix Pillar gauges..easy fix Catchcan can't be vented to atmosphere..easy fix Tyres. Make sure no oil leaks. Let the mechanic do these and hopefull he will pass the other things like coilovers and suspension mods, if any and exhaust noise..if too loud. Imho car looks good value for money.

Correct. You can hand in the transfer papers and from that date have 28 days to provide rwc.

Interesting on the frequency of oil changes. This synthetic stuff is meant to extend oil change periods. Wouldn't it be more economical to change oil every 3k with a good quality semi or mineral. I understand with track days you would want to be on the safe side but in a daily I would think synthetic is not needed. Also running 7 or 9 litre sumps would be an issue in cost. Is there any other real advantage because most of the research I have conducted suggests that frequency of oil change in forced induction is more important than using a full synthetic type oil. Interested in your views and experiences. Thanks

Just a question. All you guys using expensive synthetic stuff, how often do you change you oil and filter?

Depends what you are really going to be happy with, what you want in a car, how you want to drive it etc. Go for a drive in both and see. At the end of the day if you are going to go down the mod path then you need to work out what platform you want to start with. However if you decide on a gtr have $10k extra ready just in case.

When I got mine rebuilt run in was 500km, less than 80km/hr and minimize cruising, as in varying speed driving. Also don't do it all at once because the more cold to hot heat cycles it goes through the better. Then dump the oil and refill. That's what I was advised to do. But if your getting it professionally built follow their protocols and don't listen to me.

gtr?

Anyone know if they fit on an r33 gtr with 17 inch lmgt1s

Bozodos You asked for the evidence and I supplied it. If you want to ignore it's up to you. No skin off my nose. Again I repeat it was advice given to a poster that said his mates hit the limiter regularly. Fact is there is a body of evidence out there that there are known issues with the design. No need for personal attacks or denigration, but again if that's what floats your boat then go ahead. I suppose you are loyal to your engine builder and so you should be, but then again I am not going to dispute my builders wisdom either especially when his advice is consistent with the body of evidence that exists which is in line with his observations in his 20 years of experience. Again if people define fun as being in a family sedan with a body kit and big engine and doing burnouts on demand then get a HSV but if you are more inclined to enjoy the purity of driving in a purpose built race inspired vehicle that will inspire you on all emotional and physical levels then a gtr is for you. Not just the 35 but any gtr because they are all phenomenal vehicles that will out-perform any falcommodore super car on every level.

BOZODOS: Read your citation about the camaro. two points were interesting, firstly it was a fastest lap scenario so it it doesnt take into account the launch advantage of a GTR, secondly if its 0.4 sec slower, then after 10 laps it would be 4 sec behind, after 20 laps its 8 secs slower.....as i said this is worlds apart. Also prepared this for you: Please have a read if you really want to gain knowledge and show this to your mechanic...and if you have an LS engine put a catch can on it for God's sake. DISCO: Go away. I was putting SB chevy engines into Toranas while you were still a seed you you father's scrotum. With these concerns in mind, we reluctantly decided to ditch the factory PCV system and gut everything under the factory covers in hopes of getting them to fit. Environmental pollution concerns aside, losing this probably isn't a bad thing since the LS1's sub-par PCV system is known to contribute to oil consumption, and excess oil vapor entering the engine can also cause detonation problems. Read more: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0611_ghtp_ls1_engine_build/viewall.html#ixzz2Y4TAFBwT Many LS1 owners are faced with a few issues. There's the oil pumps that randomly die, the rod bolts that randomly break, roller rockers that randomly lose their bearings, and the oil consumption issue that seems to haunt some and not others. The oil consumption issue seems to be one of the most common issues on all LS1's out there, and this is due to the way the stock PCV (Positive Crankcase Ventilation) system is setup. A PCV system is designed to force any positive crankcase pressure into the intake manifold, rather than continue allowing the engine to build up pressure inside. The LS1 system just happens to force oil along with the air as well, so GM seemed to take a stab at fixing the issue with the LS6 system. The LS6 setup pulls the pressure not from the valve cover, but from the VALLEY cover. This is the cover that resides under the intake manifold, and sits between the 2 cylinder heads. http://www.ls1howto.com/index.php?article=18 It’s a fact: GM LS engines consume excessive amounts of oil. Supercharged or turbocharged engines, as well as engines regularly run to the rpm limit, use even more. One reason for this high oil consumption is oil volatility. The harder you run your engine, the hotter the oil gets, causing some of it to evaporate. The rate of evaporation is measured as volatility. The higher the volatility rate, the more oil disappears from the engine. Besides reducing consumption, another reason for reducing volatility is to keep oil vapors out of the PCV system. When too much oil migrates from the crankcase to the intake manifold through the PCV, the hot oil condenses in the cool intake air stream, leading to carbon buildup on the intake valves. If left unchecked, the carbon buildup can also lead to detonation. Unburned oil expelled from the cylinders can coat the inside of the catalytic converter and prevent it from reaching its proper operating temperature. This creates deposits that impede exhaust flow and reduce power output. The oil will also poison the catalyst, increasing emissions and eventually destroying the catalytic converter. With the right parts, you can substantially reduce, or possibly even eliminate, excessive oil consumption altogether—and it’s easier than you may think. http://www.onallcylinders.com/2013/04/10/quick-tech-how-to-reduce-oil-consumption-in-gm-ls-engines/ It’s no secret that I’m into the LS-series engines. I ran across some information from a friend the other day about converting the earlier engines to the LS-6 style of PCV valve. This may not sound like a big deal, but the early 4.8L, 5.3L, and 5.7L engines that placed the PCV valve in the rocker cover have experienced problems with pulling oil into the intake manifold. GM solved this problem by changing the location of the PCV valve from the valve cover to the lifter valley plate. The LS6 lifter valley plate incorporates a large baffled separator chamber that is much more efficient than the older valve cover version. Some early engines Read more: http://blogs.carcraft.com/6458559/editorials/simple-ls6-pcv-conversion-for-ls-series-engines/#ixzz2Y4wuKHBk Having said all that I am curious why the Gen III's and Gen IV's are pulling oil into the intake so much that a catch can is recommended. I agree that they do use oil because my wife's Tahoe has always lost about a quart between oil changes and my co-worker's new 2010 truck uses anywhere from a quart to 3 quarts between oil changes. He suspects the PCV system so this thread, IMHO, confirms that suspicion. Apparently GM is aware there's a problem because a friend of his had a similar truck with a similar problem. GM replaced a "circulation valve" that stopped the excessive oil consumption completely. However, I'm surprised there hasn't been more stink about this publicly because it's obviously a design problem that needs to be fixed (without a catch can). http://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?88086-Is-a-PCV-Oil-Catch-can-necessary-on-LS-engines LS2 PCV Sucking Oil into Intake - Good Blog Here is link: http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/...5/sequel6.html Here is section on Rings & PCV System: New Rings and Revised Oil Control The ring package has, once again, been changed. The top ring is still steel with a moly face and the second ring is still cast iron with a Napier face and they both are now 1.2-mm. wide, down from 1.5. The oil ring is still three-piece, two oil rails and an expander. The tension of all three rings is less than that used with the LS1/LS6 and the rings are more flexible. The discussion with Jordan Lee and Mark Damico got interesting when I asked a question about the lower-tension rings. C5ers will recall the LS1/LS6 oil consumption fiasco that ended in a technical service bulletin fix. If you're unfamiliar with that, readhttp://www.idavette.net/hib/02ls6/page5.htm, then continue to read here. CAC: Now, you guys went through the low-tension thing once before and then had to have a service bulletin fix for the ring flutter issue. How are you going to avoid that same scenario? MD: Bore distortion is improved and the oil rails are thinner, so they're more compliant, so it takes less tension to get the same sealing. CAC: How does bore distortion affect ring flutter? MD: I don't know that it affects the flutter, but it's harder for the rings to seal when the shape's not round. Because we made the rings thinner, they're lighter, so they won't flutter until a higher engine speed. CAC: My understanding is that with the later LS1 and LS6, the Napier-face, second improved oil control and eliminated that ring flutter problem. MD: I don't know if I'd call it a "ring flutter problem. CAC: This is an important point because John Juriga (Asst. Chief Engineer for passenger car Gen 3 engines from 1995-2003) was on record with media in May of 2001 stating that the reason the LS6 had an control problem was due to ring flutter. MD: The issue was high engine speed at low MAP (manifold absolute pressure)... CAC: And that was causing ring flutter. That was the explanation given. That's what I've published both in print and on the Internet. Was that not the problem? MD: I don't remember it being "ring flutter" per se. We measure a characteristic called "blow-by", which is how much of the what you're putting into the cylinder to burn goes by the rings. If blow-by goes up dramatically at a slight change in engine speed or load-everything's fine, then all of a sudden, it (ring seal) goes out of control-that's usually attributed to what's called "flutter." I don't remember us having that problem, but we definitely had increased oil consumption at high engine speeds and low MAP. The other thing we ought to point out on the LS2 is the PCV system. There are two sides to it. There's the "fresh side", where air goes into the crankcase and then the "foul side" where air comes out. You have oil separators on both sides. The separator on the foul side is the one that's the most important because that's where you have oil in the air. Blow-by goes in the crankcase then through the foul-side separator. The LS2 has a different design for that separator. It shares the same location (as Gen 3 parts) but internally, it's significantly different. Back to our CFD analysis and, actually, there's a spin on that that I think is proprietary to GM: analysis with droplets. JL: "Rain drop analysis". During that separator design, there was a lot of sophisticated analysis done with a proprietary code. We were able to model the air and the oil through that chamber and develop baffles that would separate the oil from the air. It was quite a new technique and there aren't many companies that utilize it, today. MD: It really helped us design the separator which, I think, was submitted for a patent. JL: Yeah. The oil/air separator design is patented. When we talk about oil control, it's not only oil control in the pan to keep from sucking air-keep the pickup covered-we need oil control through the ventilation system. You always want to separate the oil and drop it back into the crankcase and only burn the air. If you can't do that adequately, you're going to have high oil consumption. In the Gen 3s, when we had a lot of air moving through the PVC system at high speed, light load; the ventilation system didn't do a great job in separating the oil from the air so we ended-up burning some of the oil. That would manifest itself in higher oil consumption. With Gen 4, we made significant improvements to that oil/air separator. We've also made significant improvements in lowering the amount of blow-by air under those conditions that caused the problems which Juriga referred to. So we have two benefits here: 1) less blow-by through the crankcase under those conditions and 2) our separator is much more effective in separating the oil from the air, so we don't burn the oil. Our oil consumption is less as a result. CAC: Why do you need an oil separator on the clean side of the system? JL: On the clean side, in many instances, you have high blow-by at wide open throttle. CAC: That air flow reverses? JL: Yeah. You reach the capacity of the dirty air side to consume the air. You don't want to make the dirty air side so large you don't have to worry about the pressure side, but you don't want to consume a lot of crankcase air through the intake side of the engine all the time, either. You consume just enough that you're constantly purging the crankcase vapors adequately. At light load, you have a little bit of help from manifold vacuum. You create that vacuum in the crankcase and it constantly purges the air and reduces sludge formation and it burns those hydrocarbons, which is a good thing. When you go wide-open-throttle, high engine speed; you no longer have that vacuum to help pull the air from the crankcase and you, also, have more blow-by, so you may exceed the capacity of the dirty air side, which is sized for most normal light load engine operation. You have to make sure your fresh air side, which starts to reverse-flow, does not blow oil and air out (into the intake). That's why we end-up having oil/air separation on both inlet and foul air sides. CAC: In summary, it sounds like a lot of work was done on PCV, crankcase ventilation and oil control. JL: That's right. MD: Yeah. and this http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6989 12-01-2007, 05:36 PM LS2Tuner Nitrous Tuner Join Date Aug 2006 Location WestCoast AZ-CALI Posts 4,780 Silver 05 Goat SMASHED Your best beet is to just run a seperator. Jegs is the cheapest I know of at this point. We have discussed this in GREAT detail before. There are MANY other benefits you get besides oil consumption. Oil in the combustion mix equals detonation. I have tuned cars and been able to run more timing after inatall due to cleaner intake charge. http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/store...63433_-1_10449 Share Don't be afraid of the bottle!!! Be afraid of your tune!!! http://www.ls1.com/forums/f6/pcv-valve-question-70618/ Reply With Quote

Thanks And furthermore the tone of various poster based on bravado rather than fact is consistent with the bullying and one-up-manship you get on various forums and interest groups associated with HSV s. As displayed here there ignorance lead to personal attacks. No more to contribute here. Unsubscribed.

Personal attacks again and now all of a sudden you know the history of my car.... mmm sound like someone that can't deal with the truth, which is based on fact by the way. If people love their HSVs so much they should drive them all day as it was intended... with a taxi light on it's roof

Mmmm I can't remember saying they are slow and unreliable. I do remember saying that they have inherent problem with their70 year old design that keeps getting recycled. Put it in a taxi put a body kit on it and we have a supercar. Instead the Japanese build purpose build race cars from the ground up with the sole purpose to dominate the world and then sold them to the public. I have no alliance to any brand. When I bought the HSV I thought it was the best. Fact is it's not and far from a gtr. My realisation was when I drove an evo, then an sti, then a 32gtr. The driving experience was well beyond what any falcommodore supercar could offer. And all quite capable daily drivers. As I have said for what they they are good but don't even put them in the same category as the above mentioned cars. They are worlds apart. As for you disco, I world rather spend $100000 on modifying my 33 than buy a new HSV...if I was to win one I would sell it straight away use the money to establish a HSV anonymous group to counsel HSV owners on why their taxi's are for the tip and enlighten them on cars that give them real driving pleasures and hopefully have gtr owners involved. I would help them to understand that you don't have to do burnouts to have fun, or drag a mazda 6 at the lights to prove your a cool. Or to get a dyno graph and brag to every one that yours is better because it has 1kw more. I will explain that a hsv with 200kw more is still slower than an mx5 on a track. I would tell him that its ok and then let him experience the beauty, the balance, the purity, the legend...that is the gtr.

These are my views base on real life experience. For the doubters so they can stop attacking me personally and questioning my integrity. Took this in the morning before work.

Holden will be shutting down by 2018 and it's got nothing to do with the local market. The yanks dont give a shit. Hence fords demise and Holden to follow. Apparently GM Australia posted it's biggest loss ever. Bullshit, just an excuse to centralise all their manufacturing and create one platform globally even though they have raped us Australians for handouts to keep our jobs. If you don't believe me just google it. The signs are all there.

Ha ha can't give them away.

Maybe on paper but the yanks struggle to get those numbers on their corvettes. At look at the tyres they use on a lighter car. Think their dreaming if that what their quoting. You would struggle to crack 5.

Show me the post. How can I build a motor and not tune it on the Dyno. You got it all wrong sunshine.

Mmm I am a wanker now. Ok find me a review that puts a corvette or camaro in front of a GTR. All the ones that I have read don't and furthermore comment on how much of gap there really is... but let's do some burnouts that will be fun!! Typical. Disco what planet are you on. At no stage have I ever said I have not dynoed my car. If I have can you quote it for me. I don't care much for dyno figures they are just tuning tools. Mph and circuit times is all that matters. But again some people like their graph and wouldn't have a clue about their own and their cars capability. But doing burnouts in walkinshaw supercharged HSV... these guys are legends.... I am going to put my alfa33 with 60kw in reverse now and smoke up the street which will make me an awesome driver... .not.

Yeah those are the fu?!wits that are pathetic street draggers. Put them on the strip and they get destroyed by a laggy gtr. Put them on the track and they will last for 1 lap before their brakes go off, and go home in shame while stock gtr s are destroying them. Why? because their cars are useless.

Here we go torquing the torque again. Give me a laggy setup and I will show you how to drive it so its not laggy. Changing gears is the best solution. Any high powered setups is best to be used on the track not on the street low torque or not. Laggy setups are better daily drivers anyway.

Not about being superior. It what I see everyday. It's the norm. Funniest thing happened a couple of weeks ago. I guy in a vl was minding his own business and then stopped at the light and this idiot in an ss came flying to a stop revving his engine. Then he took off like a mad man while the vl was cruising. The ss kept slowing down and speeding up and this went on for about 500m. All of a sudden flames shot out of the vl and he was crossed up for at least 100m pulling away from the ss. Needless to say the ss slowed right down. I drove passed him and just shook my head as if to tell him how much is a d?!khead he is.

Indeed its the twisties that the falcodoors have issues coming to "grips" with hahahahahaha Yeah but they are all v8 supercar drivers at a set of lights

Another one that got bored of the one dimensional v8 taxi. Best life decision you've made.