Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah had it running off the actuator and made 5 psi fine and spiked to 7 sometimes which i dont really care too much about, but it still felt slow. like it still makes boost and you can hear the turbo spooling but doesn't do much with it.

Its a stock skyline. U might be expecting too much :)

Get it on a dyno then u will know if it is making the correct power.

Its a stock skyline. U might be expecting too much :)

Get it on a dyno then u will know if it is making the correct power.

Yeah that is what i was kind of starting to think, but it feels slower than my mates old stockish 32 with an rb20det not a 25. its definitely not slow up top is just majorly lacking in midrange torque

Nah wasn't just going up windy point rd or whatever its called in 3rd.

Ok so took the exhaust off and went for a drive. No difference just made more boost (running off gate spring). still sluggish between 3-5000

Should probably post more about the drive with no exhaust. when boost builds the car just gets very loud and droney but once it is past the flat spot it sounds quite normal like it should. can't tell change in sound with exhaust on since quiet exhaust. So probably the timing is just hella retarded I'll hook up a timing light when I get the chance.

  • 5 weeks later...

been a while since I posted here but I finally hooked up a timing light, set it at 15 deg, drove it, made it worse so assumed it was reading double, then tried to do it again but now it wont idle properly, like it will jump between 600-1000 rpm so i can't get a good reading for the timing. turning the screw on the AAC valve does nothing. also if i take the filter off the AFM (AFM still on car tho) it gets a lot worse, like idle drops and eventually stalls. also I connected up the VCT and that did nothing.

  • 1 month later...

Ok so after doing a bit of research I found that I may not have the standard rb25det injectors.

Am I correct to believe that the standard RB25DET injectors are purple?

The plenum on the engine does not have the little nipple on the back of the plenum for the stock boost gage so I believe it may be from a non turbo rb25. (the plenum came off a different engine to the one it is on now)

The injectors on the engine now are red, As said before, am using rb25det computer so I doubt the car would run if non turbo rb25 injectors were used.

Help would be great guys

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...