Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

That's your recommendation to someone who lives in Melbourne? Really?

I am assuming the stock one is still there, I have seen many skylines with the stock charcoal canister looped into the aftermarket charcoal canister.

I was suggesting to remove that fugly compliance one and only run the stock one.

That massive one in the top pic, I've seen a few R33 with that looped back into the stock one. Mine was the same, took it off and just used the stock R33 OEM one.

The stock one sits bolt next to the LHS passenger headlight, has a small u shaped hose which connects to the fuel tank. THe other 2 goes to the plenum.

I didn't even open his pictures. I just assumed it was a shot of the factory location (glancing at the thumbnails). When did they start fitting those to incoming cars? As I said, I've never seen one, and I've been under the bonnets of hundreds of Skylines over the years.

Theres 2 Vac lines going nowhere in the second photo that look the right length? usually there are labels on the top. From memory vent goes to fuel tank vent, purge goes to throttle body (or IC side of plenum) boost feed and the other one goes to a plenum boost/vac feed. Those last 2 might be wrong way round but gives you some idea anyway.

Stock charcol canister is mounted at the front on a bracket with 2 bolts holding it to the crossbrace for the radiator (Top)

Edited by 89CAL

I didn't even open his pictures. I just assumed it was a shot of the factory location (glancing at the thumbnails). When did they start fitting those to incoming cars? As I said, I've never seen one, and I've been under the bonnets of hundreds of Skylines over the years.

No idea, but every so often I see one. Especially fresh ones at dealers, I believe most people just rip them out, bin them and use the stock one.

No idea, but every so often I see one. Especially fresh ones at dealers, I believe most people just rip them out, bin them and use the stock one.

Yep, mine had one. Was a sooper shonky job too. Was the first thing I ripped out. Who needs two charcoal canisters?

So I can rip out the one in the pic ( I.e the big black fugly one with the 3 hoses)Also i can't find the OEM canister at the front that u guys are talking about, could someone post up a pic of it and how to re direct all of the hoses into the that one so I can remove this black piece of shit!

Cheers 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...