Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So, Ive put up for years with a leaky boot in my R33. I even removed and re-sealed the rear lights (and what a PITFA that was) but no change.

So I finally got off my arse and gave it another go trying to work out exactly where it was leaking from and my best guess now it that I think the water enters through the boot lid where the GTR style Nissan wing and the boot connect. I can see that the sealant is cracked most of the way around it and I think water must somehow enter through bolts? holding the wing to the boot.

So, the question; How easy is it to remove the rear GTR style wing? is it just a couple of bolts and then a case of prying the sealant/boot/wing apart?

Have you done this and fixed the leak?

thanks

have you gotten in the boot yourself with a torch and someone hosing it outside?

Yes it could easily come in around the bolts holding the wing down. Also rear window seal, boot seal, lights (which you've addressed). The mrs' Ford fairlane even had water leaking in around the key barrel for the boot - took me forever to figure that one out.

...and yes bolts and double sided tape holding it down

Edited by mistermeena

Rather than go down the kidnap-experience route, I did it a different way. I taped paper to the underside of the boot lid, horizontally under the lip of the boot area at the sides and also placed paper on the boot of the car. Then I poured buckets of water over it all, opened the boot and looked to where the water marks came from.

I've previously, aside from re-sealing the tail lights, also used the same sealant stuff to check and seal under the rear window and also along the metal seams from where the boot is welded around. I also checked the rubber weather strip on the boot, and that's fine too.

On close inspection the sealant/tape between the wing and the boot is dried and cracked everywhere, and that's consistent with the boot being the water entry point. Just wish it was something a little easier.

Looks like Easter weekend might be the time to tackle this. I had a quick check under the boot lid, but couldn't exactly see which bolts would be for the wing. Can anyone describe exactly the location of them and how many? I can probably work it out, but its always nice to use someone else's experience instead.

I'm not sure on the location/number of bolts sorry never done this type of wing. There's probably four though. The sealant stuff you describe under it will be a sort of rubbery double sided tape that sticks the wing down and stops it vibrating. It will be a total bitch to remove no doubt.

So the paper trick confirmed that its coming from the wing mounts? For a quickfix option you could try getting the nuts off underneath the wing and squirting some silicone around them before refitting.

Ive yet to tackle this; one of those jobs that isn't that much fun but I will have to address. Ill probably try to do it right though as I noticed the beginnings of a little surface rust, so wanna investigate that more. I hear fish oil is really good for rust prevention, so might incorporate that into the whole 'solution'

I did this 3 years ago. There's no need to remove the wing.

It is eeither the putty joining the seems or the where the plastic cover on the bottom of the window is.

Solution... chisel out all putty and reseal with silicone or something to that effect.

Unscrew plastic thingy on bottom of rear windshield and silicone the f**k out of it.

This should do it.

  • 5 months later...

as a post script to this. I chiselled out the sealant on the seams to the side of the boot, filled it with silicone sealant and..... while that seals perfectly it wasn't the cause of the leak. It appears that the water (from testing pouring buckets of water over parts of the boot area) enters from under the wing over the boot lid which is attached to the trunk lid. I have since silicone the whole wing (as couldn't be farked trying to remove it properly, as all the 18 year old tape has well deteriorated) which should finally provide the fix. haven't had a chance to test yet, but I feel like the problem should bee fixed now finally.

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

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...