Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Well...... no. They usually run just fine on 98 without a need for a tune. When there was no 98, and 95 was the only option, that's when there was a problem.

The Aussie delivered ones do, the imports don’t. There was a time when everyone used to throw an exhaust on them pull the restrictor out and then the engine let go in 6 month, s13s were prone to it as well 

4 hours ago, r32-25t said:

All performance cars in Japan are tuned to use it and the reason why once the cars are imported to Australia the engines blow up

I quote again. You said "all performance cars in Japan" and imputed that the all blow up once they are in Oz. It's just not true. I removed fuel and added timing to both RB20DET and 25DETNeo base maps, running on 98, and neither engine blew up. The Neo is 10 years deep into that.

33 minutes ago, r32-25t said:

2 cars out of all the cars that were brought in don’t have the issue? Still seen plenty of 25s crush bearings without many modifications 

You guys sure you aren’t just agreeing on basically the same thing? Stock tune, stock engine within reason the Nissan tunes seem pretty safe. The RB26 out here runs ok on 91 AKI which is 95-96 RON. It’s when you run a Mines tune or whatever made for 100 RON super premium that you start seeing engines blow up.

Personally I’m probably going to run wastegate boost and roughly stock timing forever on 91 AKI E10. It’s just terrible fuel and RBs are expensive to rebuild. I might play a bit with boost enrichment thresholds but that’s it. Any additional timing and boost I’d probably want at least E30.

On 18/06/2023 at 3:06 PM, GTSBoy said:

Well...... no. They usually run just fine on 98 without a need for a tune. When there was no 98, and 95 was the only option and guys ran double standard boost that's when there was a problem.

Fyp

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...