Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure .. I bought it from Clint32 on these forums.

I think it has an 8cm^2 exhaust housing

I've been advised that I should perhaps be going for cams that will generate torque rather than power as I'm going to need all the low down grunt I can get

Tuning costs?... give me another week to get another RB20 into my thing and ill see how i do with the baby TD06 properly tuned... if the cams arrive before the engine gets bolted in then it will all go in at once saving me the costs for another tune...if the cars is back together begfore i get the cams then ill be able to give you a before and after.

RS500: As Roy said, tuning costs. I thought if I just get the cams to start with then I can do the valve springs etc and get that side of things out of the way. But then again I guess tuning costs = dyno time so it's probably not too expensive the second time round to get a retune.

Joel: I dont think so. It's a T67 that he had in addition to his TO4E. I'm not sure if he put the T67 on or not though.

The cam selection for using hydraulic followers are all small lift, and won't require non-standard springs.

Cams for torque... where do you want the torque to be in the rev range? If low-end, use the standard ones. If you want more torque higher in the rev range use 264's or 272's - this would complement the turbo alot better than trying to compensate for lack of low rpm boost with standard cams. Although larger duration cams would probably assist low rpm torque as well, as they aren't aimed at reduced emissions al la std jobs.

Running an aftermarket exhaust manifold (re: a good, proven one, not a hack job) will give you a big gain in off-boost torque and driveability, as well as a throaty exhaust note.

Short version - get the largest you can get your hands on. 264 or 272 would be awesome!

You would only need to change the valvesprings to accomodate either:

a) higher revs

B) higher lift cams

Really you should be designing the engine to work together as a package, that will produce peak results within a specific rev range to suit your purposes.

The turbo, cams, gearing, head flow, manifolds can all be juggled to work well for a specific target - since you've already nomiated the rev range the engine will be in (by buying that turbo) you have to make the rest of the components fall into line. Mismatched components are a comprimise, they can work well together but it's not optimal.

Having said that, I'm sure even the standard cams would work with that turbo, so anything larger is a bonus.

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...