Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Ive been scrolling the forums for infomation directly about Injectors but not much is about the differences with them.

Its pretty obvious the more CC, the more fuel they squirt and the higher you go, the more HP you will be aiming for.

Im looking for R34 Replacements for a GTT to power a highflow so I dont really need a massive injector, I wont be running crazy boost so really only want to run a 555 or 700ish set incase I want to eventually update the R34 turbo.

Ive seen HKS, Nismo, Sard, Blitz and so on, is there really a difference in quality with those jap brands? Why is Sard more expensive than Nismo?

Finally what should I get? most people go with nismo from what I find any reason for that?

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/205679-whats-the-go-with-injectors/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No r33 are side feed, R34 are top feed

You can not use gtr or s15 injectors as suggested.

I have just fitted some blitz 525cc in my neo stagea. Have had it tuned 2 weeks ago with a power FC. Works great

$699 set from slide. I got mine thru greenline cost me under $600 del.

They come with new plugs, but they are not needed. I had to get new o rings from a mobile injector guy ($20 on a sunday) to suit the fuel rail. Pretty sure the 350z uses the same type of injector, that's why the plugs and the wrong o rings supplied with them. The injectors are approx 8mm longer than the standard ones and need to get the 2 supplied spacers from blitz which lifts the fuel rail up.

The nismo might be a better fit but cost $200 more.

Attached is a photo from yahoo auctions, which shows the alloy spacers and new o rings needed

post-14923-1202814981_thumb.jpg

Well ive investigated a few options, Seems Nismo only make a 480CC compatable with the ER34.

For my application of highflow turbo, perhaps at most 240-250rwkw would this be enough flow? I would assume so but need confirmation.

Ive also decided to bring in a HKS fuel pump capable of 250L a hour ( i read the same pump for a 240sx was rated at 165psi??), I would assume it would not suffer leaning out from higher boost PSI as its HKS (it is also direct drop in like tomei) can anyone confirm as I cannot find statistics on its claims (I would assume its underclaimed because its HKS)

My friend runs it on a R33 with no issues, anyone else?

Edited by DECIM8

Alright then, Seems greenline are the cheapest option but dont sell nismo.

Again ill just ask will 480cc be enough for my application? if stocks are handling 200kw I dont see why 480 wouldnt handle 250rwkw

check out Deatschwerks in the states

they may do topfeed Rb25det injectors

forget the dodgy secondhandies... if you really want redrilled injectors get em done locally for ALOT LESS.

IN r34 BLITZ or NISMO are the go .

The Deatschwerks ones are great i have been using them for about 1 year now with no problem what so ever. if they are put in the right way you will not have a problem. Another good thing is that the std ecu can run them as well.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...