Dale FZ1

Points well made. Suggest to get oiling, cooling, and fuelling right, and reliability will come. Increased rpm and boost will make issues with the first two become evident on track. There's no issues with mix/match to get the engine you want, but you're going to need a set of pistons to give a reasonable static CR plus machining the block to make everything happy. Essentially the same work you'd do to a RB30 bottom end, hence the suggestion. A healthy unopened 25DET or Neo 25 will give damn good results with turbo and fuel system upgrades until you're ready to spend on internal mods. It would seem gains can be had simply from minimising those bumps in the exhaust ports rather than completely eliminating them. A bit of smoothing the sharpish edges is easily achieved without much material removed. The factory engineers decided that a bit of strength was needed in the casting to support the exhaust manifold studs, but people have reported no issues by completely removing them (when do they ever really report failures though??). Either way, good luck you're going to have fun and it will cost a bit of time and $$ whatever you do.

Stock vs stock the Neo spec probably is a marginally better thing. But OP Zac indicated he has a R33 spec 25DE for turbocharging and track use. If he's wanting a 3 litre, now would be the best time to make that happen. 25DE runs the light(er) duty conrods and 10:1 pistons, also the block does not come fitted with under-piston oil squirters. You might contemplate using that bottom end assembly if going straight to E85 but otherwise it's not destined for long life at 300kW target. So really it has a good donor head, and hopefully an oil pump with lots of service life left. Perfect for use with a RB30 bottom end. Stock 30 rods, a nice set of pistons and leave the head alone except for the VCT oil feed modification. Loads of stick, and a longish life if only run up to 6500ish rpm. Zac if you wanted a reasonably easy turn-key engine and are prepared to play with looms etc then get a 25 Neo complete and start with that. Comments about limited value in porting are accurate because at 400rwhp there's plenty of other areas to spend the money first.

If it's for cosmetic purposes on a road car, just a pointless addition. Motorsport purposes are different. Flush mount catches can be done, they just take time to get right on the install.

The ignitor is only a switching device that allows the individual coils to fire. Later model stuff has the ignitor manufactured integral with the individual coils. Ignitor failure can be caused by overheating - there is a reason they are mounted to that steel plate from the factory. Old trick to ensure good heat transfer is to have a really thin sliver of wheel bearing grease between the ignitor and the mount. Just enough to bridge the gap, and that type of grease won't melt and go everywhere. The LS coil packs are bigger than OEM and can accumulate/discharge a bigger spark than OEM in the same time. Arguably not as tidy looking as OEM when installed, which may make a difference for those looking for stock looks. Somewhere in the mix here I think the HKS spark amplifier kits might be an alternative. The Haltech gear sounds similar to the HKS stuff. CDI is about the biggest/baddest setup available, barring a magneto as per old school V8s. Uses a separate control box, and generally needs the main loom shielded from the radio interference generated. It's priced accordingly and is not widely used but it is the best if you are chasing big reliable hp and need a walloping spark. Substandard results can happen if setup/installed by someone not fully conversant with what is required. The info is out there about CDI, just surf a bit longer and read wider til you get the level of understanding needed.

No sub-zero temps around Mackay either Callan. Might make a difference for someone running a daily driver in the Southern climes.

The front running machines in this event were hot-rodded "production" cars with generally a lot of sensible freedoms for racing. The "showroom" tag is definitely misleading, but the category attracted good interest and a range of driving talent into diverse machinery. Inclusion of high spec exotic sports cars saw significant speed differences 100km/h +, with inherent safety concerns. This event showed some damn good tactical racing and highlights the driving skill (and lack of awareness in the closing laps) out there in categories other than our current staple of taxis. Can't seem to post links anymore, but found this regarding the M3R: Frank Gardner developed, 15 built, 11 sold to "approved" public buyers. AP Racing twin plate clutch, 4 piston brakes, special shocks and springs, light driveshaft, special diff, Schnitzer cams, cold air snorkel, dual oil pickups in the sump, oil restrictors to the head, deleted A/C, dummy lightweight rear seat, front splitter, Gurney flaps on spoiler, special lightweight BBS wheels. And you needed to have a CAMS license to buy one. RX7SP Allan Horsley developed, 35 built. Carbon fibre nose cone, special aero front and rear for cooling and reduced lift, 120 litre fuel tank, intercooler and exhaust mods, light weight seats and carbon bits, 100kg lighter than stock, special wheels and brakes. Porsche beaters, but proved fragile if run flat out. Difficult to keep cool. Evo 5 RS - thinner panels, thinner glass, deleted A/C, quick steering rack, close ratio gearset, mechanical diffs. Rally spec brakes/wheels (smaller diameter). Over the years of this category running there seemed to be constant manoeuvring to have special bits or limited edition models allowed to compete. Wiki search of Australian GTP gives more info.

Bandaid fix. Water spray would run out very quickly. Spend the money in the right area, namely the biggest oil cooler you can fit and decent ducting that forces air through the core. Sandwiching the oil cooler between intercooler and radiator won't do the job.

Factory hot rods from all the front runners. RX7 SP and the M3R both developed by Australian engineers. No doubting the all round ability of the 911 RSCS either, lacking the straight line snot of the Supra but much better braking. The R33 V spec really wasn't in the hunt, other than making a blinder of standing start. From memory the Horsley-run RX7 had cooling issues in the 12 hour events and they learned that reduced rpm and less power was needed to make them live. Who wouldn't want to run in an event like this one?

If the power target and type of use ie. occasional/track or daily/road is factored in, I would agree that lower octane fuel could be a reasonable choice when total running costs are part of the equation. Couldn't see the sense for track use if it means saving $5-$10 over the course of a day for the sake of saying you are running low octane fuel if there is a remote possibility that you might strike detonation problems. I don't know of anybody that has reported detonation problems at low load/cruise conditions with a turbocharged engine. It's when full torque is demanded from the engine that it comes unravelled. Quantity of water to be injected under low load on-road (ie more often than not) would mean a pretty big water tank is needed. It would be interesting to find out if water or water/meth made any difference to how the engine runs at light loads, as per E85.

What's it driving like now? And fuel economy? Try highlighting that map from 2000-4500 and 40-120kPa and add +2 degrees. Run that for a few hundred km, and then highlight the same area on the map and take away -4 degrees. The difference should be immediately apparent for your light load / part throttle running.

I see two imperatives with WI: Reasonable distribution across all cylinders Being confident that the system will deliver on demand every time. Clogged nozzle/s and sufficient water supply tank come to mind. A tune optimised for WI should lead to a quick engine failure if the water system fails to deliver, due to leaner fuel mixtures and the ignition advance. And there lies the biggest advantage of an E85 setup: only one liquid delivery system to worry about. The stories/pics of carbon sludge in E85 do ring some servicing alarm bells though... I don't see that much cost difference between the two systems if starting from scratch and chasing 250-350kW. Different injector sizes and maybe a replacement fuel rail for E85 sized injectors but that's about it. Each will need an ECU, tuning etc. The WI system certainly requires some creative thinking to package tank/pump/lines and nozzle/s placement. End of the day, product availability probably wins the argument. In Queensland there are not many locations where you can get E85 from a bowser, but water comes out of all the fuel station taps.

In the 40-80kPa MAP range and from 2000rpm upwards, try winding in those ignition values as GT had. Maybe massage the column preceding 2000 so the jump isn't massive as you drive into that rev range. 2000rpm in 4th gear is roughly 60km/h and you may find it gives the flexibility from more efficient burn. Interested to hear if you think it brings a noticeable change to either engine feel or fuel consumption. Any luck getting hold of GT?

Trawling through Guilt Toy's thread, at page 50 post 996 there was some useful comments between Dirtgarage/Swiper and 180or200 regarding full load AFR and ignition timing. Suggests full load of Lambda 0.80, 0.85 at the leanest; ie about 11.8-12.4 on your target AFR in the Vipec table. And ignition timing adding around 5 degrees over a "typical" petrol-specific ignition map. Also somewhere early in there I found GT had trialled very very lean cruise AFR up to Lambda 1.29 (Vipec target 19.0) with various degrees of success. Mainly fuel economy related, with lean pops maybe suggesting it wasn't that happy?? And at the same timeframe, adding bulk timing in the ignition mapping with somewhere like 44-48 degrees for the light load/cruise. I haven't seen any other valuable bits other than the NOx emissions were reduced as he added richness into the light load/cruise area of the map. Mostly people have covered the increased engine output by changing to E85, and lots on availability and fuel system requirements. Nobody else has really addressed driveability with lean/light load conditions. The Vipec tutorial menu recommends against using closed loop lambda (CLL) as a substitute for good tuning. Global trimming (whole of map, not individual cells) is applied, so if you have various cells that were tuned by your shop at targets that are wide of your current trials, the trimming might not get things where you want/expect. Lends some weight to assertions that the fuel map should conform reasonably well to the targeted AFR, and then when CLL is enabled, its corrections tend to be smaller and "hone" the tune. In suggesting making coarse changes to either fuel or ignition, it's from the perspective of giving pretty quick assessment of whether the engine is happy or not. Coarse change to me would equate to an AFR target change of 1.0 or Lambda 0.07. Coarse ignition change would be in lots of 3 degrees, but decide in advance what ceiling you're going to apply. GT's values would be in the ballpark, I'd think maybe even a touch lower at 42-44. Adrian did you play with start enrichment, or warmup ECT corrections once it's running? Also would you care to post up your ignition map? It will be interesting to see how GT goes with your car if you get him to look at it. Might be a good learning experience.

Not an apples-for-apples comparison, but my 30DET with 265/8.9mm lift cams is not happy with a stoichiometric idle AFR, running on petrol. I found it needs to be fat to be happy. Stock 25DET with the 3076 0.87 A/R turbo did not demand anything really rich to idle nicely, but it was still happiest on about 14.0:1 - again on petrol. The required numbers on ethanol might be different, but it's not unreasonable to think the trend might be similar. Tune to whatever method you are comfortable with, but perhaps making some coarse (ie larger scale) AFR adjustments and you would soon see what's needed to get that happy spot for driveability and consumption. You'll never know what your EGT Is doing without a pyrometer however, so it really should be on your "must buy" list. It was one of the very early additions to my R33, likewise with a range of vehicles over the years both spark and compression ignition turbocharged. Not a big leap to have the thermocouple feeding as a loggable input into your ECU. If your closed loop lock-out parameters are set so low, it stands to reason that the ECU is not necessarily hitting the target AFR under anything than virtually steady state running. Are you sure the main fuel map is within a bull's roar of the strategy you are trialling? If you're not, or it's not, do you know how you will get it close? Guilt Toy's thread is probably a good resource, but I'd suggest the Vipec forum could yield some pearls. You may have to run on an assumption that any multivalve turbo engine eg Evo, GT4 Celica, Supra, Silvia will respond generally the same/similar, so people posting on that forum may have good information to share that is applicable to an RB25. The added benefit is that forum is focused to specific Vipec/Link attributes and how people are looking to get the best from that ECU. The issues of light load response and driveability vs AFR and EGT has been round and round now, so how much extra ignition timing is being used, and what actual AFR are you seeing compared to 10 days ago?

Difficult to tell, but is the difference in the relative overall height of the impeller?

The path to power can be expensive and you might find yourself spending twice or three times on specific components unless well thought out. Common question - identify your power/performance target. That's going to dictate what bits are needed, and the various supporting components. Sub 300hp/225kW and things are relatively easy, plus the car will be more useable for a number of your planned disciplines. GTS Boy is on the money. Up to that point, forget injectors. Do the pump and direct wiring mod though. Go for Hypergear turbo, run on pump 98, that will get you a decent upgrade for much cheaper than a GTRS kit. Then start putting money aside for a decent clutch. If the goal is going to be 350+ hp, just do a clutch straight up and keep putting money away for an inevitably bigger turbo than highflow, plus pump, wiring mod, and injectors. At that point you would just size for E85 flow capable units, and make a decision about whether you want to burn alcohol and tune to suit. 280-300hp is relatively finance-friendly, surprisingly quick, and useable power. There are a couple of good threads about where guys have focused on suspension/steering/brakes/tyres/diff but stayed with near stock power. Much smarter move, wish I had gone that path a few years back and left engine upgrades to later on the list.

It's a bit hard trying to second guess EGT based on slight variations in ECT on a hill, except perhaps if the engine was heavily loaded for a decent period of time. Airflow and thermostat cycling can have a decent impact here. Get a pyrometer - you should even be able to use the thermocouple's output as a datalogging input for the ECU. Have you attempted datalogging, and reviewing the information stream? That cuts out a lot of guesswork. Also can you share any lessons (presumably... ) learned from the Vipec forum or the help functions in your software? Be good to hear a little input from your use of those resources.

Grade 10.8 at least. Don't use stainless.

Ingenuous move, working out how to make some bulletproof idea used by another manufacturer work in this engine range. It's about time there was a workable solution to changing oil pressure relief springs was figured out too, without needing to drop the sump. Not everyone needs an expensive dry sump setup, and the difficulties that go with packaging it into the car. Hopefully it's a good solution in practice, and he's able to get the stuff priced so it's affordable

The sums don't add up to anywhere near that figure from that turbo, regardless of mechanical spec of the engine, or fuel being used. Be interesting to know the decision making process on coming to that choice, and if that was his targeted power output. What is the car being used for?

Poncams might be "drop in", but the importance of having cams that are correctly degreed is widely glossed over. The engine might be performing "adequately" or even "good", but having those sticks in exactly the correct position will make a difference to overall efficiency and best torque for a given tuning strategy. I understand you are trying to eke out the best consumption for a given amount of mumbo. The target AFR from 100-120kPa absolute just looks too lean for my liking. Try richening it up a small amount there eg 0.2 AFR points. The thing needs fuel as it comes into boost as you make it pull up those inclines in higher gears. Ignition mapping just looks way too conservative - "nice" on petrol but you're tuning for alcohol fuel and its advantages. While you're experimenting, add 4-5 degrees everywhere above 1500rpm and below 150kPa absolute.

I'm puzzled by the Y axis scaling. Why have such small increments? The ECU you are running has IMO got a VERY good capacity to interpolate between points. You can achieve smooth progression into richer target AFR as loads increase. I have trialled maps that use heaps of load points not that dissimilar to your screen shots. It just created a LOT of needless work poring over datalog streams as I trialled different cell values in the fuel map. I discovered things became much easier when I moved to wider gaps in the scale. Just my experience. As per Wolverine's comment, something appears odd if it doesn't feel happy going near stoichiometric AFR. You have got non-standard cams. Were they degreed when installed?

^^ Agreed, and echoing my views above

I believe the Vipec doesn't show lambda values, just the petrol-specific AFR calculated off lambda. If that's the case, the target AFR is way too rich on cruise for sure. Adrian if you wanted to eke out the absolute best fuel consumption then I'd recommend setting it up for closed loop lambda. An alternative is to spend time logging and reviewing what the thing is doing. Over time you can get the fuel table nearly spot on and forget having the wide band sensor installed fulltime. Either way, it looks like there is some work to do.

Anyone claiming similar spool between GT2871 and the GT3076 is having a lend of you. They are different and feel different. You would run them for different expected outcomes. That's been covered many times over, and you'll be kicking yourself for not having fitted yours much earlier. I kept my boost control simple, open loop and just a single 3D table with MAP vs rpm. Datalogging helped with fine tuning the duty cycle, job's done. I do use a ECT and IAT correction so it won't give full stick if one is too low, or the other too high. The Vipec tutorials even recommend keeping it simple so if you're messing with TPS etc for your boost control mapping, you might be unnecessarily complicating things. I have seen it used successfully on a big power SR, along with gear position to make the thing driveable off corners. But that was a 600+ rwhp time attack type car, not highly relevant to a full weight 350ish hp R33. I'm sure nobody minds sharing experiences or ideas, but could I suggest you look to knock over one issue at a time with understanding how to tune to achieve results? Dancing from topic to topic makes it difficult to follow what you're wanting.