Dale FZ1

You'd need to have things measured up, making sure piston-valve clearances are ok as the cam gets advanced/retarded Also possibly clearancing the head casting to get the cams to fit without fouling. Thirdly sufficient room in your valve springs to keep away from coil bind. Interesting path to go down, and hopefully it works well. You'd nearly have to ask what it is you're setting out to achieve/retain, and whether VCT will help you do that.

The V88 really is a high end motorsport-spec unit. The plug in V44 is more than adequate for any road or club motorsport application. Regardless of branding, either the Vipec or Link are a good thing, and a clear step forwards from the PFC. Achieving a stable return to idle while running PFC and AFM with hard inlet pipe is something commonly reported, and a source of frustration. Flow capacity of either a Z32 or VH45 AFM was never an issue but making it behave nicely under all conditions can be. Lithium's comments are all on the mark. Besides all the good features, the ability to log significan amounts of data beyond the capabilities of PFC/Datalogit, and onboard the ECU adds extra icing to a tasty cake.

With stock-spec engine internals (ie cams, CR) in a 25DET that seems to be commonly achieved with the 10cm housing. The 12cm and cams should result in pushing the torque curve to the right, probably a good thing for a drifter with clutch kicking. Can't readily see why the 20G comp would be the thing of choice over a 25G for that performance target. Much the same situation with the Garrett range GT3076 vs GTX3071, the performance outcomes are lineball because the smaller comp has to spin faster to pump the air-mass. That said, it's an option that should hit the nominated power range without too much problem.

It won't/can't run leaner simply because you're introducing a water mist into the inlet airstream. That can/will only happen if you adjust the ECU and reduce the injector duty cycle at each rev/load point. You should find that best results actually come from leaning off the fuel and increasing the advance. To start with I'd suggest a good starting point is the 8-10psi mark, and ramp up the WI pump duty so it's hitting maximum around 16-18psi.

Predicting strong torque between 5-8000rpm. Going by the pic associated with the post it's optimal use is on a drift spec engine.

Owners comments were that it's a TD06-20G, with 12cm housing. By my reckoning that's broadly equivalent to a GT3571, and a 1.00A/R turbine housing. Looks much more like something you'd see on a reasonable sized diesel eg. Landcruiser 1HZ. Of course it will be slow to respond. Simply wrong spec for the engine and application.

Bit of a variation Try about 1-1.5 neg in the rear. Toe settings try about +6 F (total), and -4 R (total). Static settings are one thing, but having someone with enough know-how to setup the rear so that toe change through the range of travel is minimised is worth gold. It will come down to a bit of trial and error, seeing how responsive you want the chassis, and how the different settings affect tyre wear.

The abstract and conclusions give sufficient detail for the average punter to understand what they investigated. The direction for production engineers wanting to use flex-fuel technology and hitting on performance, fuel range and emissions targets is (to me) heading towards cam-less valve actuation, and perhaps throttle-less spark ignition engines. I think that is effectively what the BMW Valvetronic system is all about (??). I tend to agree with Adrian regarding the any consumer swing to E-fuels until/unless the popular opinion is that they are getting something for nothing. If their car goes further on less fuel, or the unit cost for fuel means their transport costs are lower, then watch them pick up usage. It is quite clear that the knock limitations of straight petrol do not allow mechanical optimisation (ie higher end static CR) when multi-fuel strategy is the target. But early or late inlet closing events seem to pull back the defict when no E-blend is being used. Without research, I suspect that strategy is aligned with the Miller Cycle process and may be directed towards improved fuel efficiency and/or emissions so perhaps a win-win for future production engines, Meanwhile I don't see sufficient evidence that the average Skyline/RB punter will benefit from playing with multi-fuel blends. E50 might yield most of the benefits, but who wants to muck around with making their own blend when E85 is commercially available in what seems to be reliable proportions. Again I agree with Adrian that the evidence points towards benefits for someone planning on dedicated E85 use with a new engine build. Not sure that just playing with static CR is the answer, though it would seem 10:1 and 1.2-1.5 bar could be a very effective combination. I don't have the engineering know-how, but reckon the best solution might lay with cam spec/timing in tandem with higher static CR. The effective dynamic CR should be the focus, really just as now for people running straight petrol. I would be interested to get some reliable information from engineers involved with the swap to ethanol fuel for the Supertaxis on what was the change-trend in cam spec for them. I'm not really interested in that category, but there aren't many recent instances where they have had a mandated change from petrol to alcohol fuel and give engineers the chance to see what (if any) mechanical detail of the engine could be changed in tandem to get the best from it.

Got any plans to plumb in a decent trans cooler? Most modern multi speed autos seem programmed to shuffle down gears pretty quickly as soon as you hit a rise or hill. Generally keeps average road speed up but can increase temp loadings on the transmission while the torque converter locks/unlocks. Interested to hear how the Challenger gets on for chassis stability and fuel consumption once you have a few towing miles under the belt.

^^+1 you will find that it's quite normal for a plain bearing unit to have some play in a static inspection. Once the engine is started and oil supplied to the bearing, the rotating assembly rides on a cushion or wedge of pressurised oil. Same as your plain bearing journals inside the engine. So the play is taken up by the oil film. Not difficult to get it inspected by an expert however, if it gives peace of mind. BTW, those results should

Are you concerned about siphoning, or spray dribble as the system builds/tapers pressure? If you look around there are some nifty/simple anti-siphon devices that also incorporate a filter. Nothing more than a ball/spring assembly with a very fine gauze, but they work, they're serviceable, and they're cheap. Running either a boot-mount or underbonnet tank, it's going to be difficult to end up with the nozzle/s lower than the tank.

Check this link: http://www.bulletcars.com/superchargers/rotrex-supercharger-system.html and give them a call. First hand experience with Rotrex, they are compact and virtually silent in operation. I'd be surprised if Bullet don't have something already to suit the V35.

I'd like to see an overlay. Might be wrong, but I couldn't see any significant differences at 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000 rpm points although the shape of the curve between them may be slightly higher. I agree with Simon, it's obviously not gone backwards. But an overlay simply hightlights the advances. The torque curve is showing a falling trend by 7000, and the bigger power number appears attributable more to a little kick in torque over the final 250rpm. Run under similar conditions with no other mechanical changes it would be hard to see the thing make the suggested power number simply through extra revs, but compromising your engine reliability would be a certainty at some point if you did. All said, the result is certainly good, and dyno numbers can't be expected to convey the difference in feel as the engine runs through its speed and load ranges. Well done overall Battery, and I bet it does haul. Hope you intend tracking the car, not just dyno or 1/4 mile?

That's what vernier cam gears are for

Assuming you want to check cam timing. Double sided tape. Or mark/drill the wheel and use M6x1mm metal threads to attach to the balancer. Either way you need to establish No.1 TDC, and reference that against what the timing mark on the balancer is showing. This will assist with your ignition timing map as well.

Get it from the horse's mouth I say. Email and phone both work if you are seriously chasing after one from him.

If using this setup reduces setup or AFM positioning "issues" and at a lower up-front price, then I say go for it.

If you speak with Kam I believe there is a low mount version being developed. Why you would bother is a little difficult to fathom.

The three cited factors ie. easier packaging/install into existing/custom pipes; and price sound like compelling reasons to give one a try if running an AFM setup. Eliminating stalling would be a significant improvement as anyone who's gone through that saga would testify. It is only a sensor that measures airflow, so provided the fuel mapping is correct and the AFR in desirable range, difficult to see ANY reason why there would be more more torque at any given rpm UNLESS total airflow (boost) is changed. Before/after graph overlays please, as above comment by Jez.

Why not let customer service do its thing. Pick up the phone or send email and see what they recommend, it is their product after all. You do know that the tune takes all of 1-2 minutes to connect your PC and save the tune file? It can always be re-installed if lost or altered by you or anyone else.

Grand Prix racing has always been about money. Who has it, who doesn't, and the politics behind gaining the advantage and the financial resources or rewards. Any decade, any iteration of the technical regs in force at the relevant time. Interesting article in Motorsport (July 2012) regarding the 1933 Tripoli GP helps clarify this, in my mind at least. Paying drivers are nothing new, and raw talent is no guarantee of more than a second glance. Not saying I agree with it though.

No blowby is going into the comp inlet according to the original post. Limited source of origin.

Are there traces of it in the trunking from K&N - compressor? Give the filter a clean, don't apply excessive amounts of the filter oil. Then give it another run after wiping out the stuff shown on the comp inlet and see what happens.

If you couldn't see a coating then there was none. Normal procedure is to use plenty of assembly lube, and that's about it. Make sure all the markers line up, and away you go.

Not likely. I have cams in a 8.9mm / 265 duration. The Tomei units are straightforward to install without clearance issues. If you have concerns/issues with noisy lifters, pluck them out while the cams are out. Disassemble and clean.