Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And because it's my car and my money and I can do want I damn well want to it

im not attacking you or anything, just bewildered that youd do that to a car youre gonna sell in a few years an upgrade when your licence will allow!

anyway, you said its your money! :)

It wasn't the fact direct injection and turbo hadnt been done but the vq25dd issues.

Yeah, we'll I'm glad I'm not doing it. Problems off the top of my head would be the dd injectors, the fact it's either 11:1 or 11.3:1 compression, plus the Strength of the connecting rods, and engine management.

I guess it's one of those things, if you throw enough money at it, it would probably work, but it's really not a cost effective project. Far better to ditch it when on full licence and get something easier.

Rods are the same as in the VQ25det, so no problems with strength :)

  • 2 weeks later...

Bolt-on turbo skyline NV35 powerless

skyline as NV35 say VQ25DD with 2500cc, is it was very feeble 5AT direct injection type engine

We like to run fairly or bolt-on turbo

Maybe a little too large turbines.

Wrap most of the main control CPU, using an e-managed enough fuel, 足Shimashita with additional injectors

Unlike the twin-turbo and NA of the normal twin, in a heterogeneous CPU nameparameter is very difficult.

How much to go to the normal power injector? While we explore setting

Blow off valve e Managed turbine TRUST T618Z

APEX Power Intake catalytic muffler

Original AT cooler intercooler oil cooler

BLITZ D-SBCid Ⅲ

0.83 → 0.68kg/cm2 boost

221.3ps 30.3kgm Power Check Chart picture

Phoenix Power Jp

There you go. Turbo VQ25DD. Expect 220hp.

Sorry about the Japlish.

Edit- read- the Turbos too big, The stock ECU controls everything except we bunged an emanage in there, it was f-ing hard work compared to the twin turbo/VQ35des we do every other day. We don't have any injectors to add more fuel, so we just hope these flow enough so your motor doesn't blow up- we bunged in an extra one cause it works with rotarys... and it only made 220hp. Lets go back to the R35 GTR now...

Edited by PN-Mad

LOL, love your translation Alex. Makes much more sense & is probably exactly what they were thinking, even if they didn't write it up in those words.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

No one has touched on probably the cheapest and probably best initial way to make ur car go faster. Put the thing on a diet. A lot of weight could be saved by striping the thing however depends how far you go with this. I recently replaced the front drivers seat and the thing is f@#$ing heavy. My point is depending what features you require to keep the ride comfortable and driveable a lot of weight could be shed. That being said I would take the advice of nearly every other post on this thread and forget about the extra kw and focus on looks and style while still on ps as in a year you will be able to drive whatever you want. The thought though of having a VQ25DET in the shed waiting to be dropped in would be something different and certainly be a step up once installed thumbsup.gif

my two cents

It would be a great option but the awd sump would probably have to be swapped for a 3.5de one. Possibly a better option to get a cheap VQ30det, easier to get running too as there is no evct.

In response to the weight thing my model is the basic basic, has no power/heated/cooled seats. Other than the spare space saver there is not much I can take out.

And I response to the stag half front cut, didn't the VQ25DET come in RWD? I thought it did but I maybe wrong. Because I was planning on getting either a VZ-R N1 N15 pulsar or a AXIS Autech stag and keeping th skyline as a daily

Dont waste ur money just get a GTR or something when ur off ur P's if u want power its not worth screwing around with N/A cars for power unless u have 15k to throw at them to do it properly and by that i mean rebuild the entire block pistons con rods ect, turbo kits ECU, injec, brake upgrades suspension, transmission/clutch/gearbox upgrades. If you do it half assed u will blow the engine out in around 80,000km from what i have seen on G35 driver, they guys that drop SC and Turbo kits in all blow engines if they dont do internals and with the power u get from doing the internals you will need to do the listed supporting mods or u are going to not be able to stop/damage the car.

I would just keep it as stock as possable then when ur off ur Ps get a 34 GT-T and go nuts with that. If i fit into one thats what i would have done.

Edited by T4NK
And I response to the stag half front cut, didn't the VQ25DET come in RWD? I thought it did but I maybe wrong. Because I was planning on getting either a VZ-R N1 N15 pulsar or a AXIS Autech stag and keeping th skyline as a daily

nope, all VQ25DETs are AWD and automatic

Thank you for clarifying that.

The VZ-R N1 is the most powerful 1.6lt in history with 147kw from the factory and only 500 made and they weigh nothing so they are quick little things. 34's are to common. There isnt many VZ-R's around let alone the N1's

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...