Jump to content
SAU Community

Vspec Or Not Vspec

wraith_skyline
 Share

Recommended Posts

wraith_skyline Proficient

wraith_skyline

Posted
Posted

Been looking at a 34 GTR and i was told it was a Vspec, but the badging is not there, are there any sure ways to tell by looking at it? It is also a chameleon purple and i am told this is a limited colour, is this true or are they just trying to make it sound good?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/208605-vspec-or-not-vspec/
Share on other sites
choyda Veteran

choyda

Posted
Posted

Just get the number BNR34-###### off the build plate and post it in the thread called "VINS you want fasted". I have a 34 GTR Midnight Purple 2. The paint code is LV4. V-specs typically have an additional front lip under the front bar (like a black plastic sheet that goes to about half way of the engine. Also, on the rear, there is a carbon fibre sheet under the bumber that goes to just beyond the rear wheels. Good luck :D

gtr13 Proficient

gtr13

Posted
Posted

best way is to put the chasis number through the nissan fast software a couple members on this forum have access to it and can do it for you . The other ways are the front plastic diffuser and rear carbon diffuser which did not come on the non v-spec models but can be fitted to non v-spec cars by their owners to look like v-spec's very common with the front diffuser but not the rear one because of the cost .

other ways are the speedo the numbers 1 to 3 on the tacho will be compressed with the spaceing where as the non v-spec will be normal spaceing but the speedos are very easly replaced so still be wary, other way is the rear diff caseing will be finned while the non v-spec's will be smooth same as the 33 GTR's the 32 GTR's are opposite every normal 32 GTR will have a finned rear diff caseing where the v-spec models will be smooth.

another way but iam not 100% sure the main function display on the dash on v-spec's has 7 parameters and with the non v-spec models i think only has 5 parameters maybe one of the non v-spec owners could confirm this

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • RA708
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By RA708 · Posted

      Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • MBS206
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • RA708
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By RA708 · Posted

      So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • GTSBoy
      Would it be stupid to twin charge a skyline? Would that be possible/practical to do on an rb engine?

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • RA708
      G'day!

      By RA708 · Posted

      Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...