Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi,

Since it was designed for r33 (not neo) and since neo head has slightly different intake ports and AAC valve bolt pattern -- sure it will require more work to install it to neo engine.

But there is nothing impossible.

I love how everyone who has it fitted wont explain what was necessary to make it fit. This is a forum where people share information, so share, please.

Agreed.

Its the same people saying it "can" be done, or they "have" done it. But wont go as far to to share how it was done

OK it is bolt on;

just use a set of fuel rail spacers or R33 GTS-t rail kit, a R33 throttle body and greddy adapter or even better use an infinity item like in my pics. Very simple :dry: no black magic :P just a bit of re-looming to keep it all factory neat.

post-34927-1174340883.jpg

post-34927-1174340904.jpg

post-34927-1174340920.jpg

Edited by URAS

Standard R34NEO injectors I see... that's weird; general concensus a while back was that R33GTST injectors would be needed (top v side feed)

This is interesting; has dispelled a LOT of myths.

My question is this though; you say to use a R33 TB or other one... won't this remove a few components of the R34 since the NEO TB has a massive donk out the front which controls a few things?

Interesting work; well done!

OK it is bolt on;

just use a set of fuel rail spacers or GTR rail kit, a R33 throttle body and greddy adapter or even better use an infinity item like in my pics. Very simple :D no black magic :P just a bit of re-looming to keep it all factory neat.

Very interesting, some questions;

What o’rings/spacers/adaptors are used to fit the R34GTT (top feed) injectors to the R33GTST (side feed) manifold?

Why can’t you use the R34GTT throttle body? The throttle butterfly is the same ID, is it the bolt spacing that’s different? Possible to use/make an adaptor?

What throttle cable is used?

:dry: cheers :huh:

  • 7 months later...

i know its a old post

but trying to do this atm, i got some R33 Fuel rail spacers, but it doesnt seem a tight fit as it should be? did you use anything else? or there something you can do to make it tight?

also need a R33 ACC valve, as 34 one is bigger

Cheers

Justin

forgot to mention you lose traction control (a given since the TB controls it).... i hate it anyway :D

finished one with trac control still working for those that want to keep it.... piping is a nightmare though.

i know its a old post

but trying to do this atm, i got some R33 Fuel rail spacers, but it doesnt seem a tight fit as it should be? did you use anything else? or there something you can do to make it tight?

also need a R33 ACC valve, as 34 one is bigger

Cheers

Justin

in rail or in the manifold?

in manifold, fuel rail is all good, real tight fit. But put the 33 spacers in the manifold and then injectors into the spacers and isnt tight at all unless only pushed in a little bit and its sort of tight, but not like pushing into the stock manifold.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...