joshuaho96

I now have a new dilemma for this one. I notice that the new block fitting doesn't want to be tight in the threads in the orientation pictured. It genuinely feels like I'm going to break something if I try to turn it another full turn to be truly tight. Any ideas here?

To add to this as some data, my BCNR33-005838 has the block RB26053761A on it. I suspect this engine is original as the car is pretty much stock before I got it. If we assume the VINs go upward in order and we assume no spare blocks are built for any reason then we get 53775, which is extremely close to what my block number actually ended up being.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/gtrusa/posts/1619061911630151/ Some people claim it's fine, others claim it blew up and contaminated the hell out of their AC system.

Worst case you get an entire sill section, cut out the old one, weld in the new one. Suggested reading: https://nissan.epc-data.com/skyline/bnr32/3885-rb26dett/body/740/ https://nissan.epc-data.com/skyline/bnr32/3885-rb26dett/body/760/

I was under the impression that Australia has had much more stringent requirements for a while now with cars getting defected for all kinds of reasons in some regions. Technically a standalone ECU that is programmable with no limitation has always been illegal for a street car. The EPA just has never had any reason to go after people until widespread popularity of coal rolling and hiding emissions equipment deletes with ECU tunes forced their hand. It sucks for the distributors caught in the crossfire for selling fairly innocuous stuff but it’s been decades of turning a blind eye on the part of the EPA.

It's your time and money, personally if I pull an engine I'm going to build it like it's never getting pulled again.

You could always ask CP how much valve relief you can mill into the pistons before it's a problem. I know some tuners out there mill valve relief out of the stock pistons to get the full 50 degrees of cam advance on an otherwise stock engine.

The question is how much performance matters for you on pump gas vs E85. Take measurements to find scavenge ratio and where you are in the turbo's operating map for both turbine and compressor. Personally I would rather have the right sized turbo for pump gas and just use E85 to get more timing out of everything but I'm not building a 3.2L drag engine.

Technically yes, the F80 M3 has just had all the feel and feedback tuned out of it and the S55 just sounds horrendous for reasons I still don't understand.

This is making me nervous now, my car has been sitting in the garage for a month now with the two fuel lines that come from the tank just sitting with nothing but a plastic bag zip-tied over the lines as a cap. The injectors are out for servicing but it's going to suck if the fuel absorbs water or something and damages the injectors as soon as I get the car back together.

I got it in the end. I got CRC Freeze-Off as mentioned before which is basically just penetrating oil and R152a combined. I sprayed what felt like half the can at least, a solid 30 seconds of spraying to get the piece very cold. Because the can I used was combined refrigerant and penetrating oil it's frankly extremely wasteful. I had a bunch of paper towels on the block under the fitting to catch all the spilling penetrating oil and even then it was still dripping all over the ground. I would probably recommend a separate can of R152a, then using your preferred penetrating oil after getting the threads properly cold. I took the time while the penetrating oil worked into the threads to go do some other chores. Then smacking a spanner with a dead blow hammer got it to break loose enough to put a 27mm socket on it and get it off. For anyone that finds this thread in the future I recommend getting soaking a paper towel in water and shoving it into the fitting when cutting the Y pipe off the fitting to keep the dust from getting into the block. I didn't do this because I'm not very smart and I spent probably a solid 45 minutes just reaching into the hole with clean paper towels/gloves to try and clean the area around the hole as best I could. I don't think all that much actually got into the engine but there's definitely an element of paranoia to it. There is also a ton of crud all over the threads so it's hard for me to tell how much of what I cleaned out of the block was from the threads. Next step is to degrease the side of the block of an old valve cover leak, pulling the oil cooler, replacing all the gaskets in the oil cooler, replacing the starter motor, then buttoning everything back up. I plan on putting o-ring grease on all the hose barbs in the hopes of keeping the hoses from rust-welding again.

Liquid water is water, the injector droplet size primarily affects surface area. Even with good injectors there is always some amount of liquid that remains on the walls of the intake. Gasoline has a much lower enthalpy of vaporization than water and transient fueling control is a big deal because despite that lower enthalpy it still tends to stick around as liquid on the intake manifold walls. Injecting gasoline to coincide with the intake valve just lifting off the seat tends to negatively affect combustion stability and raises the possibility of pre-ignition from the papers I've seen. With port injection it's pretty hard to screw it up but direct injection you can easily cause LSPI from the fuel that ends up in the ringpack/crevice volume. With water the problems I'm talking about are somewhat easier in certain regards but also worse in others. The higher enthalpy of vaporization means more wall wetting, more water makes it into the combustion chamber without turning to vapor but it's not a fuel so you don't worry about a big rich spike causing problems on decel/overrun. If you want to inject a decent amount of liquid well upstream of the individual runners your intake path needs to have balanced wet flow, which is what carb engines had to do back in the day and even then it's pretty well known that an old small block chevy V8 will need to run rich on average because the cylinder distribution of fuel is not balanced. I believe Haltech recently put out a video where Matt mentioned running into these issues. I would not be surprised if you end up with something like 80% of the upstream liquid water in an RB25 manifold going into the center cylinders and very little going elsewhere. The lean cylinder 6 thing is more an RB26 issue and seems to be multiple problems in one. The rear cylinders are the last to get coolant flow so they run hotter by default. On top of that it tends to get the most air. The geometry seems compromised in order to clear the clutch master cylinder. Balancing airflow is a real thing and if you search there are a number of guides/CFD experiments talking about it in manifold design, both for dry flow and wet flow. If you're looking for some hard data publicly posted as far as I can tell nobody likes to share hard numbers for anything in general. I can tell you that a lot of people in my area have blown RB26s and when compression tested usually cylinder 6 is the worst, then cylinder 5. @Sydneykid supposedly has the data here: I also tend to believe Nismo's claims, usually they don't just make things up. It would be weird to falsely advertise a problem (uneven cylinder airflow), then claim that fixing it with your plenum will net all of 2% more power for some hilariously high price.

Americans are only interested in overpaying wildly for something with a hilarious amount of rust and a blown engine sold by instagram hypebeasts, step one to getting 25k USD equivalent is to have a huge instagram following.

Yeah, PB Blaster but my experience with penetrating sprays has been pretty mediocre. I'll let it go overnight and see if it gets any better tomorrow. I have tried both directions, doesn't feel like anything is happening either way. I suspect the solution is going to be to go buy a can of CRC freeze-off and try to see if I can get proper thread penetration that way. Doesn't sound great to use a can of refrigerant just to break one bolt loose but the block is a big thermal mass and I really don't want to risk damaging the engine block. I've used a torch on oil pans before but only ones that come out easily.

I can get a blowtorch in there, it just makes me nervous to take a torch to the block. Isn't it painted? I need to also wash the entire side of the engine, there's clearly remnants of a valve cover leak all over the side of the block. The pipe part makes me nervous because slapping the end of the spanner with a dead blow hammer full force was enough to make the edges of the fitting's hex start to distort a little. A 12 point impact socket actually visibly rounded the edges. There's still plenty of meat left after I cut off the smaller pipe with a cutoff wheel but those two incidents are a clear sign to me to re-assess before I really create a disaster.

I decided to try removing the fitting on the back of the block that goes to the heater core. Any advice for how to remove this without creating more problems? I have tried a 27mm crescent wrench and hitting it with a dead blow hammer even with quite a bit of force is just threatening to round off the bolt instead of actually moving it. I have an impact driver which is the wrong tool but works surprisingly well for most smaller bolts like 10 or 14mm, no dice with something this big. Should I try dry ice or something like that? Picture for what I'm talking about:

https://www.facebook.com/STAVTECH/photos/pcb.1278381832338336/1278380939005092 It can be measured, usually with an EGT probe per cylinder. The RB26 is pretty notorious for running cylinder 6 the leanest and the rear turbo the hottest. I plan on putting a Nismo plenum in mine as I button the whole engine back up to maybe help with that issue a little. From what I can tell it probably doesn't totally equalize the airflow between cylinders, just makes the issue less severe than factory. HKS is supposedly working on a dual plenum design which on paper should make it close enough to not matter, their description starts at 4:03 and shows a CFD comparison between a single and dual plenum design: The other thing to keep in mind is that with pure water injection there is a ton of energy required to actually turn the water into vapor. If you're going for more than just IAT reduction it implies that you're going to have liquid water in the manifold. If most manifolds already struggle to have equal air distribution between cylinders it's not hard to imagine how hard it will be to get liquid water to distribute equally when it really doesn't want to change directions compared to air.

Are they pinned at the minimum level or are you saying they read atmospheric? If it's the first then I would trace the power and ground. If it's the latter make sure the vacuum line is hooked up properly.

I found this: https://frenchysperformancegarage.com/products/ecu-mounting-plate-nissan-skyline-r32-r33-r34 https://www.iee.nz/product-page/haltech-elite-2500-ecu-mount-r33-gtr

I agree it's old science, I agree it can make a ton of power. It's more just that I really need to keep the car reliable and after pulling pretty much everything off the intake side of the engine I'm not sure I want to deal with even more stuff crammed in there. I feel like I can barely even do basic mechanical work on this thing so I don't really want to start going nuts when I could get at least substantial thermal efficiency gains just by going to E85. Side entry plenums tend to deliver more liquid to the center cylinders, front entry plenums tend to favor the back cylinders. Methanol helps a lot with getting the mixture to evaporate more readily but I really do think if you plan on injecting more than just a token amount to drop IATs for in-cylinder effects you probably need to do individual injectors.

I know there are flow sensors that you're supposed to use, Aquamist has nozzles that are PWM instead of the old style pump duty cycle, Bosch's solution to water freezing is to pump all water back into the trunk after you turn the key off to empty the lines, Aquamist tells you to add methanol to keep it from freezing/keeping stuff from growing. General point is to get it to truly OEM levels of integration like what you get in an M4 GTS is just such a huge headache. As I said, even the Bosch system in the M4 GTS has a known issue with valve block corrosion, lots of people reporting the filter clogging easily, etc. I still think about doing it sometimes because it hurts my soul to think about how perfectly good fuel is being injected purely for cooling purposes instead of actually burning properly, but it really is not a nice straightforward thing to do. I would want to put the injectors on the bottom of the Nismo plenum because that's where the bosses are for secondary injection. But that would mean even more crap that has to fit under there, a set of injectors and the valve block and the water lines. Putting the injectors on top with a bracket for the valve block could also work, but that's going to be competing with the ITB linkages for clearance. I was just referencing a specific journal paper where they were injecting a pretty crazy amount of water in an attempt to achieve ignition timing on par with say 100 RON with 91 RON fuel + water injection. It's likely that they were completely overdoing it, especially because they found that water injection timing coinciding with IVO was a source of problems. They just show up, warm up the engine, then beat on the engine for hours and hours for months to collect all their data. My goal would be to completely eliminate boost enrichment with water injection, so to me per-cylinder control of water injection is a big deal. I actually found the paper, turns out it was the Nostrum Energy people supporting some university research, but I don't think they were alone in their findings: nostrum_sae_water_injection.pdf I think this is probably where I'm headed, just because it's so much easier to run a brushless pump, run higher flow injectors, add a flex fuel sensor to the fuel filter outlet and the rest is entirely ECU.

The intake is not at all designed to have equal liquid distribution, so I would expect that pretty much all of the water that doesn't evaporate in time is going to end up in the rear few cylinders. So a post-intercooler nozzle would have to inject very little water to ensure it all evaporates before reaching the intake plenum. I had an interest in water injection at one point but the sheer complexity involved in doing it right is a huge headache. You need to control it effectively as a separate fuel injection system. The injectors need to be much higher pressure than port fuel injectors because you need to atomize it finely for good evaporation. Water is corrosive which means everything in the system has to be designed around that. Water also freezes which could damage the system if you leave the car outside and it falls below freezing overnight. Water can also grow things which is yet another problem to deal with that can clog injectors/lines/etc. To do it right you would have to run AFRs that are normally considered incredibly dangerous, like lambda 1 for the entire operating table at operating temperatures. Then instead of using enrichment to keep the engine from detonating to death you inject enough water to absorb the heat of compression and initial flamefront development. So if the water injection system fails for any reason then you destroy your engine, basically instantly. On top of this water displaces oil, so any liquid water hitting the valve stem will contribute to valve stem wear, any water hitting the cylinder walls will also wash down the walls and potentially contaminate the sump. One journal paper I read where they experimented with water injection they discovered bore scuffing and they also milkshaked the engine oil so it really pays to be cautious. Nostrum Energy was supposedly working on this on their R35 demo car, I don't know what ever came of it. I bet they ran into issues because despite talking it up I've yet to see them actually ship anything. The Bosch system in the M4 GTS is also known to be troublesome, frequent system failures there as well. Aquamist is basically the only game in town for something you can actually buy today.

The reality is that good powertrain calibration engineers can land well-paying jobs at the OEMs and not deal with customers or customer service, so the tuners that most people can access on the open market are usually not the greatest. The consumers of tuning usually have no idea how to check stuff like this either so unless the tune is bad enough to break engines (not uncommon) there's no real verification. I've basically accepted at this point I need to just DIY my tune. I don't like the idea of this but that's just how it goes. Maybe if I ever get my base map to a good state I'll post it up somewhere as open source.

No, when I did this I definitely recall some of the fill bolts being smaller. I need to go check again but I'm pretty sure some of the fill plugs are 10mm square because some Nissan engineer was giddy at the thought of making people buy more tools, pretty sure in your last thread the ones with the lower torque spec are smaller. Also as Sean Morris' blog mentions just give up now and prepare to drop the front driveshaft as a part of the process, don't make your life miserable trying to avoid it. I recommend using the right size socket because those things are usually very, very stuck on there. Hope you have an impact wrench or something similar so you don't round the plug or damage something.

Don’t think it would cause your code 21 but that is not a good sign. I would fix that before it causes more problems.