discopotato03

Can anyone using GCGs split GT30 IW Skyline dump tell me if they work properly or not . If it's a lemon I'll get one made but if its alright I'll get one to speed up the fitting process . So close I can smell that 76 52T and I want to see it working . Mick O your front dump used a divorced WG pipe , was the gate side of the dump flange matched to the turbine housing port or just hole sawed like GCGs ? Thanks all cheers Adrian . PS Ch cha cha cha - nah . Hopefully won't do that so much through the std airbox . Actuator is 1 bar big can if it makes any difference .

Yeah that appears to be a problem with some of these EFRs . I can see Geoff and a few others thinking we get these TS IWG turbos to the masses and they want to bitch about packaging . I know they tried really hard to make these things work really well but I ah wonder if a bit more compromise with packaging would be a bit more acceptable to the fast road market . Shortening up those long IW T housings has to affect waste gate performance but would a little less still be streets ahead of the turbocharger competition ? Hard to please everyone I know cheers A .

Sydneys Kid once said to me that an RB30 is the first think he'd do to a GTR and I tend to agree though I'd probably opt for an RB32 or 34 . A pre loved - thrashed GTR - probably needs an engine by now and 30s don't appear to be any more expensive to do than 26s - yair ok the plate ... Straight away RB34 is going to make stupid torque at low to medium revs compared to a 26 even with cock ups like low static CRs . That sort of capacity is not going to need big revs or boost to make very adequate performance . Turbocharging becomes very easy when there's lots of off boost torque because you haven't got to worry about the age old boost soon cause it feels like a 120Y ATM . I would have thought it obvious that anything that comes on boost at mid revs and goes ape shit over a narrow rev band would be very hard to drive neatly esp for non race std drivers . This is the sort of thing that gets very intense very quickly and if it's mid corner and or on questionable surfaces AWD (of sorts) is no guarantee that life continues in the seconds that follow . Have a good look at the Grp B rally monsters and note a few who killed or almost killed themselves driving them 11 tenths . Bigger engines in lower states of tune were almost always easier things to manage because you had far better control of the engines power output . The all time drama with big boost/turbo engines is that you often can't control turbo speed with your right hoof so the dryers going to do what it wants to do given WOT over its boost threshold . Because load on the engine is often inconsistent they can boost differently in different situations . Basically torque modulation can be interesting because of the pumping characteristics of exhaust driven centrifugal air pumps . If you have a bit of say with gearing , diffs anyway , you can opt for taller ones to have a bit more speed in the intermediate gears and this is something I reckon is to some degree an issue with RB25 turbo powered Skylines . Anyway almost non existent chance I'll ever have a GTR , not rich enough , but if millions fell from the heavens a 30 something is a given . I don't need to be dramatic or attention seeking - too old for that , good flexible engine with prod go power more to my liking . If I truly wanted a Skyline to rev piss and pick handles out of it would be an R32 GT4 or whatever the 4WD RB20DET powered thing was , drive it flat everywhere because it's cheaper to throw engines at than a GT pawper maker R . No , knowing me it would be a Neo Stag engine in the 32 because still cheaper easier than a 26 and probably give a few stdish GTRs a real big hurry up for less money and agro . Sorry folks but I just can't see past the complexities and at the same time limitations of TT RB26s - on the street .

I'd like to see a Mivec head on a 6/7/8 engine using the larger aftermarket TS turbine housing . Taos mentioned the losses of std manifolds and IWGs on RBs and I imagine you'd lose a bit more if RB25s didn't have the inlet cam switch even as basic as it is . Anyhow Mivec tames things down at low revs and I think even in std form one of the cams is hotter than earlier factory ones . Taming down means less loss with healthier turbos but all business when the revs are up and cam timing switches to lets go get em mode . Evo 9s were getting pretty heavy for a 2L car and Mitsy were using all the easy things to avoid adding more capacity . Lots of aftermarket manifolds around for Evos now and I think FP is doing a larger bore cast manifold which would be handy if it looks std . Possibilities .

If you didn't already have it I wouldn't buy it to start with . Better I think to have a Japanese made Nissan if you like the brand . VLs are old an thin on the ground now and I reckon the only reason you'd get an RB powered Dore is if you really like live axles . You get so much more out of R series Skylines for the money and the end result tends to be better . If I wasn't carting people around I'd look for an R32 with the RB25DE in it , I think it was called 25GT or similar . R200 IRS , four piston brakes fall in , huge choice of wheels . Upgrades galore and heaps of spares around reasonably cheap . Your call , A .

Hi again Stao , so much I'd like to talk about but yeah concerned about clouding your thread . Firstly I'll pm you about that 20mm T3 spacer and the other thing I need is a GT30IW turbine housing dump flange with the first or bell mouthed tubular section welded to it . I really wish someone made front/dump pipes for GT30/35R IWs on std manifolds for R33s because so many people have gone that way and it makes the conversion quick if you have everything else . Anyway if you can make the first bit that could save me some down time . Compressor housings , I think Garrett has a size problem between the T04B and T04E because the B probably runs out of flow and the E is physically significantly larger . The ported shroud on the HKS style Garrett T04E is huge for what it has to do at 4" 100mm . You may have noticed that some of these housings on GT Pro S turbo have the cast sections machined off and they make their own turned section and bolt it on the front . Think they are 80 or 90mm inlets and that makes plumbing easier . What I'm leading into with this is the FP HTA GT30 upgrades ie 71/73/76 wheels in T04S housings with machined snouts . Now I know there isn't a lot of information out about their HTA3071Rs and 73Rs and like Lithium I'm very interested to hear how they perform on RB25 roadies . Cost aside I keep thinking surely they could get away with slightly more modestly sized comp housings than the T04S 70 AR at their power levels . To my eyes compact things are easier things to work with and less obvious to hostile eyes . Ease and stealth are good IMO . Last OT bit , punters make respectable power with XR6 turbos and they don't have big comp housings on them for a 4L engine . Low hot side restriction and modest boost levels I suppose . PMing , cheers A .

There is a degree of difficulty and expense going either way as in W/WMI or E70/85 . With a bit of mucking around and a willingness to be accurate you can blend small amounts of ethanol into your 98 PULP and get reasonable results . This is the cheapest way to go about it but if there's a downside it's having to do it properly and consistently . By this I don't mean to within 1-2% either because if people are getting tunes wide enough to run E70-E85 , or even 66-90% , then you running within 5% of what you're tuned for eg splash blend E10-20 isn't going to be a biggie . As I said all ways have risks , get bad tank of eth it's a risk . WMI pump failing under load - it's a risk . Get the splash blend wrong it's a risk . Method of splash blend , work out how much E70 or preferably E85 gets your 98 PULP to the desired octane . Divide that litre number by 4 and plan to gass up in 1/4 tank increments . So , if you worked out say 10L of E85 does the trick get used to adding 2.5L per 1/4 tank . Doing it other ways often leads to ethanol percentage creep because it's difficult to work out from a fuel gauge exactly what volume is in your fuel tank . If you add a consistent blend then the percentage shouldn't change . Could even carry set volume containers so you can literally measure out how much E70/85 you're pouring in so you can't easily screw it up . In the above example a 2.5 and a 5L container covers it . It could have been a 5 and a 10 depending on what you tune for . One tune no WMI or the need for real big fuel pumps and injectors . I believe having an enhanced performance car means being more attuned to its running characteristics so you know without being told when somethings not right , and nursing it until the problem is found and fixed . I don't need gauges to tell me if my round town tunes and or blends are out though a wideband is really handy . Only you can know if saving time/effort or money is your priority . Your call cheers A .

Stao I'm curious to hear what you think of compressor housing size and power levels , where you think the cut off points are for the 0.60 T04B , the 0.50 and 0.60 T04Es . The T04S is usually as big as most go and I'm curious to hear how much difference you think there is between it and the 0.60 T04E . Also can you supply a T3 spacer plate in 15 to 20mm because I can't easily get one , GCG advertise a 20mm one but they don't have them and don't know when ... I have their longer studs and I want the thicker spacer to cover any future updates , do once do right . It's no secret that I don't like the S covers mainly because they look bigger even if it's not much over the T04E port shrouded one . I just can't get my head around using a supposedly 700 hp comp housing on a 4-500 hp compressor . There are a few less common compressor housings floating around like the 0.70 AR T04B and there may even be a T04S 0.60 AR . I remember Brett telling me years back about a 2" outlet comp housing they used as an upgrade to the XR6Ts T04E one so there must be a few odd ones out there . Thanks Stao , cheers Adrian .

And the rad cap is designed to raise the cooling system pressure above atmospheric which raises waters boiling point anyway . It isn't the water temp that does the damage its the gas pockets which form if it boils in the jackets . Where there isn't coolant there isn't cooling and the localised difference in temperature is good at cracking and warping heads and breaking them free of their head gaskets .

Interesting read from a NZ site , can't link so search "98 vs E85-is e85 viable ?" . Non related but search Megalith the Ultimate Man . Cool .

Latest home brew update . Last tank of 98E35 got 520Ks with varied driving highway and round town . BP98 BTW . My road tuning is getting better which shows in consumption , wideband shows 0.93-1.01L mostly and 0.85-87 on load . Next try will be 98E25 , 20-21L E70 and the rest Ultimate . I have a quarter tank of 91E35 in ATM just to see what happens , lost very little round town so adequate at a pinch if struggling to eat .

Sorry didn't finish that last post . Some may think I'm mad blending 91 ULP but the thing is I'm looking for most octane from least ethanol because of its lower heat production properties per unit volume . We all have to remember that the real difference between low and high octane (91-98) ULP is the ability of the higher ones to resist auto ignition or detonation . They don't produce any more power than 91 does if the combustion heat and pressure don't reach the detonation threshold . I can't guess what the minimum octane requirements are in my case but it's easy to work out what you can save if you blend a brew that gets you enough octane and the petrol content is cheaper . Lets just say you need 100 octane and you want acceptable range for less dough . You work out how much ethanol you need to boost 91 ULP to 100 octane and splash blend however much E85 it takes to get you there , assume for example half half 91/E85 . Lets say 91 is 20c/L cheaper than 98 and E85 is say 35c cheaper , I haven't a clue what United E85 costs because I don't use it . So you save 20c/L using 91 and 35c/L using E85 , blending 50/50 is 6 plus 10.50 =16.5 bux . Now someone's going to say yair but you use more of any brew that has any ethanol in it because of its lower heat potential . The papers I've read say that there is usually a sweet spot in ethanol percentages where many engines can equal straight petrol consumption or even improve it by a few small percentage numbers . It you can find that point you won't be behind consumption wise at all , also assuming your engine is capable of this . Lastly , better fuel consumption also makes a difference to fuel system setups because ethanol in high percentages like E70 and E85 needs a fair bit higher fuel flows so expensive things like fuel pumps and injectors have to be factored in . If you can get what you need from lesser blends like say E25-E50 you don't have to use extra big injectors or pumps because you don't use really high fuel flows . Mild upgrade parts may get the job done . Food for though , cheers A .

Yep more searching in American sites is showing up the same thing , according to them works like this . Back in 1983 they must have introduced ethanol to make E10 , they did mainly "splash blending" meaning add 10% ethanol volume into 90% 91 octane ULP . In those days E10 was made in small volumes compared to other fuels so not worth playing about with . But over time 91 octane fuel became the defacto std unleaded fuel and the refiners took a closer look to see how they could save a quid - a few cents over billions of gallons adds up . It seems the higher grade ULP base stocks go through more processes than the lower grade ones and yield ends up being less fuel . Then they worked out that if they could produce 82 octane base stock fuel they could save money and increase the yield - THEN add 10% by volume of ethanol to bring the octane rating up to 91 . They can't legally sell 82 octane fuel to the public but it makes the basis of cheaper to produce 91 octane E10 fuel . What this means to the end user is that you lose virtually all the advantages of the ethanol ands it just becomes an octane booster for low grade cheaper to make base stock . You may think yeah so what I don't use E10 anyway , thing is if you use locally available E70 or E85 what is the other 30 or 15% volume of these blends . If it's low grade crap then you won't get the full octane rating of ethanol which is supposed to be around 113 and your consumption won't be what it could be . Another thing I read about is the two things that give ethanol the effective octane increase over ULP . First is the chemical difference and second is the evaporative cooling difference and depending on whos figures you believe it's conservatively ~ 30% of the difference . Also people here say that at ~ 40% (E40) you get most of the benefit of blending ethanol and from the papers I've read the cuve flattens noticeably in the 40-50% area . ATM I'm running a splash blend of 50/50 BP 98 PULP and E70 which works out to be about E52 or 98E52 if you like . If I can get the tune right and the consumption better then the next try is going to be 91E52 . You might think I'm mad using 91 in the blend but ..

Yep 3" (76.2mm) here and 80mm in Japan . Saddedst thing is we used to have 2 3/4" (70mm) here as well but almost non existent now .Occasionally some Jap exhaust bits are in this size because they know in some instances a little higher gas speed works better than with 80mm . A .

I would have liked to have seen some detailed pics of these RH9 alternators because the pics in the adds don't show much . I did notice that they have a wire and plug so some kind of "pigtail" adapter from late to early connector ? A .

BASTARD Oil Companies . I long suspected that oil companies could be using low grade - read cheap shit - base stocks as the petrol component in ethanol blend fuels . It stands to reason that ethanol increases the octane rating of petrol fuel blends and if the bastards use really cheap low octane stock the ethanol does raise the octane up a little but it undoes some of the benefits ethanol has as a fuel ie evaporative cooling . Can you imagine how your average engine made in the last 20 odd years would react to using 82-87 octane base stock on its own ? This is why you would see a performance and probably a consumption advantage if you could blend straight ethanol with real petrol . No wonder budget "E10" gets such ratshit performance and economy . Have a read , cheers Adrian . Edit cut/paste not working , search "Refineries and their position on octane levels"

I think you can safely assume that any temp sensor with a relatively speaking large thermal mass isn't going to be fast acting . I though GTRs used the same sensor for water temp ? Anyway my GTS25T has the same Blitz intercooler and my air temp sensor is screwed into the back of the std cast crossover pipe . I never see anything like 80c unless its been shut down for a short time on warm days . I'd say Nissans idea with GTRs was to have a sensor that told the computer that the system was hot because it had be running at full load for an extended period of time . From memory that sensor was in the plenum inlet on R32/33 GTRs and the intercooler outlet collector on R34 GTRs . Also mass air sensors measure temperature because that affects density and therefore mass . Manufacturers can work out air temps , in a std car , by knowing what it is at the AFM . Std car std boost exhaust etc etc . That all goes out the window once you change things . Ultimately we both need the air temp sensor , a real one in your case , mounted in something that doesn't have much thermal mass or parked right above the engine copping all the radiated heat . A good spot would be in the IC return pipe far enough ahead of the turbo and exhaust manifold to not be influenced by them . From memory Guilt Toy had his in the duct before the throttlebody but that had a non std inlet manifold and throttle on the cold side of the engine bay . Plazmaman one I think . A .

No it works the other way around , Neo 25Ts have a lower flatter piston crown to maintain the same 9.0:1 static CR with a smaller volume combustion chamber . The R33 25Ts have a higher raised piston to get static 9.0:1 with a larger volume chamber . So in theory if you put a Neo head on a 33 engine the CR is higher than a std 33 . Stick a 33 head on a Neo short block and the CR is lower than a std Neo . Smaller chamber + flatter piston is the better std system , less chamber surface area to absorb combustion heat and 4 valve engines breathe better with flatter pistons . If you remember high comp pistons in hemispherical (Hemi) chamber engines you know about the great chunk of piston partially obstructing flow between the valves , it has to be this way because the chamber volume is so big . Aside from more valve area without big heavy valves part of the pent roof 4 valve chambers advantage is compact chambers so you can get CRs up without high piston crowns . I'd be comparing the pic of that piston with pics of std 33 and Neo pistons . A .

Rather than starting another thread on ethanol I found an interesting test Ford did with low to mid ethanol blends ie 20-30% . If you know a bit about their Eco Boost series of engines you'll know they are about capacity down sizing with forced induction and direct fuel injection - chamber injection as opposed to port fuel injection . Have a read , it basically covers testing with a CR increase from 10:1 to 11.9:1 and using E20 or E30 . The results are very similar to 91E10 type performance and consumption . EDIT Link won't work , search "Ford AVL Study concludes mid level ethanol blend attractive as long term future fuel for use in optimised engines in US" . The thing that caught my eye is the octane rating of E20 - 96 oct and more significantly E30 - 101 octane . If you're a Grinch like me that wants octane without the premium price it open possibilities . Blending E70 with 91 unleaded petrol would probably be the cheapest way to get 101 octane fuel , or a tad better since it's E35 not E30 , but it remains to be seen what sort of range you get . It'd be interesting to compare on a $/km basis to United 100 oct E10 since both 91 ULP and Eflex is cheaper than United 100E10 . Thoughts ? Cheers A .

Well short of having blender pumps here there isn't a lot of choice , and the oil co's have done a great beat up job on ethanol in fuel . The problem in reality is that we pay far too much for E70/E85 considering that ethanol is MUCH cheaper to produce than ULP . The price difference is quite a bit less than the consumption difference so it's a major rip off to consumers . The only mob that's half having a go is United with their 100 octane (98E10) and actually that could be interesting to try , can get that quite close to where I work . A .

Latest update though it's really a Vipec and ethanol blend thing . ATM I'm running a 3 to 1 mix of Caltex E70 and their 98 PULP . I moved to -9 on the master fuel trim . That got in the ball park but I was having slight momentary lean outs from closed throttle that extra accel load increases did not fix . Also the transitions from idle timing to active timing table was causing some drivability issues . The answer is going to the setup sections and editing the parameters that control switchover . These can be road speed MAP and TPS related and in my case going down to 1% TP or less had a big say in making some of these transitions activate quickly . Once these are close the light on off throttle tuning is much easier and gets me repeatable results . Just on idle mixtures mine now seems to like about 0.90 to 0.91 L , this is obviously going to vary with fuel content . Sometimes IAT readings get up a bit and I wonder if having the temp sensor in the cast crossover pipe right above the engine is a good idea . With the fuel I'm noticing a bit smoother running and a bit more very light load torque at car park speeds . I think this means that purely light load running ULP works better because there's not much fuel going in so the ethanol doesn't do anything for you . I don't think this is an AFR equivalency issue either as I tried all kinds of AFRs with E70 and it didn't achieve the same thing . Also Dale yes I remember reading Guilt toys findings with very lean highway mixtures and I reckon he would have gotten better results with a better computer than the PFC he was using at the time . There are too many important parameters you can't do anything about with Datalogit software , with the Vipec and wideband wired in he could easily have had those very lean cruise mixtures whilst having full control of accell volume and transition phases . No feedback or target correction on PFC . In a street car it's more important to have good responsive transitions with not what I call rich mixture transients , I'm now running around the burbs and seldom see anything richer than 0.91 L unless I boot it around . BTW the current fuel blend is ~ E52 by mixing 3:1 Caltex E70 and 98 ULP . PITA procedure of four jerries with 15L E70 and 5 PULP in each . Too hard trying to blend in the tank and get any kind of consistency . The next try with be same but using 91 ULP because I want to see if the lower petrol octane has any effect on my cars state of tune . I'm only making one 20L Jerry of this so it's not much to get through if the engine doesn't like it . Ultimately the easiest in tank mix is going to be 50:50 E70 and petrol because you can vary the amount you add to suit fuel levels and maintain the same ratio . Off the top of my head that's close to E35 and right in the middle (30-40%) of where people stateside reckon is the optimum amount of ethanol to see most of the improvement it gives in a daily driver . Note this is different to maximum effort race or drag fuel where very harsh combustion conditions demand higher octane and max evaporative cooling by injecting a higher volume of lower heat output fuel ie methanol or ethanol . At E35 I would start with 98 PULP before 91 ULP just to see if the effective octane causes detonation issues for me . Always understand that I run in a reasonably tame state of tune with the GTRS and I reckon the only reason it went 271 wheel wasps was because E70 allowed it to run a bit more boost and timing up in the rev range . Had it been tuned on say BP Ultimate the number should have been more like 240 wasps and reflecting the exhaust flow limits of that turbo . My instincts tell me that when the 52T 3076R (0.82) goes on the numbers should be back round the 270-80 but naturally more free spinning . With E70 getting to the 300 benchmark shouldn't be hard but I want better all round fuel consumption because I don't intend to drive flat out too often . E35 50:50 may just be good enough but there's only one way to find out , cheers A .

I would not miss the opportunities to lose the hydraulic valve train and side feed injectors R33s have standard . AFAIK the CRs are the same R33 to R34 but the thing is that tightening emissions legislation forced Nissan to change the design so they could run 34s leaner and cope better with detonation . Everyone agrees the Neo is the better spec 25DET so worth having . Side feed injectors are a PITA , Neos went back to 14mm top feed injectors and EV14 eg ID injectors go pretty much straight in . Much more limited selection of SF injectors which aren't as good and a pain to work with . I would be more than happy to run factory Neo rod pistons and maybe cams in a 300Kw RB25DET , they made more power std than the 33 version did so cope with the extra easily if tuned properly . The cost of improving 33 rods and pistons would more than cover the difference in price of a Neo . Anyway your call , I know what I'd do . A .

That's all good until you work out Neos have less plateau on their piston crowns because they use smaller chambers to get the same static CR as an R33 spec RB25DET . If you can add a Neo or same spec Stag head to your list you get as good as it gets in an RB25DET . An R33 head on a Neo short engine will give you a low CR which isn't real good IMO . Your call cheers A .

Even on a budget turbo pistons and cams wouldn't be a bad idea . A .

Yeah well it works out to around $155 cleaned tested and with new NTC (OE) bearings if the reg rectifier and brushes are good . That's with the help of a mate and the workshop with $50 their way because I don't use people . The RH9 one has the better front case tensioner mount position but even having to make or mod the bracket it's heaps cheaper and any Maximer alt with the right pulley and socket goes bolt plug . $155 vs 6-900 , the plain lookin one wins . I'm reluctant to think there is anything special in the RH9 one and if there is it could be higher speed bearings - and lairy paint . Of course a bright blue pully and stator is worth at least a second in the quarter ... 100% ! A .