Jump to content
SAU Community

Intake Plenum Question - Dropping Boost - Also Good Tools To Have When Owning Skyline For $29 !


Recommended Posts

Made mine up using a piece of metal tubing the same size as my inlet pipe. Simply welded a cap on it and fitted a tubeless tyre valve.

We have pressure tested 4 lines with it to date, 2 with known boost leak probs which we found and fixed and 2 with the owners claiming no leaks. Both of these tests revealed multiple boost leaks.

Its a very worthy excercise imo.

Nice work fineline. Where were the main boost leaks? So you attached the inlet pipe you made to the trubo inlet hose? So you are effectively pressuring up through the compressor side of turbo?

Cheers

Edited by benl1981
So Adriano, do you think wack the old gasket back in with some goo? I can't see any holes in it. Anyone got any ideas from the photos?

Use HYLOMAR spray.... it is god on metal gaskets.

Well after adding gasket goo (to intake plenum gasket) and blocking BOV I am still getting huge boost loss after 5500-6000rpm. I am just dropping my cat to see if it looks collapsed. There is no evidence of leaking at the plenum gasket now so I think that's sealed.

I will make the pressure tester and check the inlet tract.

Only other thing I can think of is weak valve springs but you wouldnt think that would change in a week!?

I guess my centre muffler could have issues.

**PROBLEM SOLVED*** modified stock snorkel not allowing enough airflow or sticking to bonnet

Edited by benl1981

Hey fineline. What about the hose that takes the blow by from the rocker cover? That is connected to the rubber intake pipe. Should you block that so you dont pressurise the top half of the engine?

Cheers

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

    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
    • Yes they do. For some maybe. But for those used the most by abusers, ie Skylines, the numbers are known. The stock eyebrow height for R32/3 Skylines is about 365/375mm or thereabouts. The minimum such heights are recorded in adjacent columns in the database.
×
×
  • Create New...