scathing

Yes, that's normal for the Popcharger. I had people asking if I'd turbo'ed the car, because they thought it was an atmospheric BOV venting. I don't know how you could confuse that little hiss with a BOV, but I do like the induction note through the pod when you're hard on the throttle.

Customers, in TVR land, are better referred to as test pilots. They seem to have the same accident rate. There's a great video of Martin Brundle trying, and failing, to drive one on a wet test track. I remember mentioning how much I wanted a Tuscan or Cerbera to some British colleagues, who advised me against it. Aside from the convenience of not needing sat-nav to get home because you could just follow the trail of parts, Hansel & Gretel stylem that have fallen off the car from the moment you leave your garage they mentioned that TVRs have overheating in the UK. In Australia, you'd be f**ked. A P-plate legal (in NSW) to boot.

In motorsport I'd run them in their own class. As people have said, they are two very different engine types and so comparisons are pretty hard to draw.

Its still impossible to say. Now that you've brought in a caveat that the smaller displacement engine is lighter, not "all other things are equal" (as you originally stated). The 2.0L engine might be lighter, but the 3.0L engine will make more torque naturally due to displacement. This allows the 3.0L car to run taller gearing (for the same number of gears), bringing the RPM down, while giving the two vehicles similar acceleration values (to keep the performance as close to each other as possible, for comparative purposes). The gearing can't be kept constant if you want to keep your "super efficient" pre-requisite on both powerplants. A gear ratio that a 2.0L engine to hold a certain speed will be too short for a 3.0L engine, and so it'll be overrevving. At that point, the 3.0L is outside of its efficiency band and your comparison becomes void. Where the 2.0L engine might need 3000RPM to hold 100km/hr, a 3.0L of the same bore & stroke ratio might only need 2500RPM. If that extra litre of displacement is made up by stroke only, then there's even more low down torque and that will give the engineers even more scope for gearing the car for efficiency rather than acceleration. a 3.0L long-stroke variant of the engine might only need 2000RPM to pull said car at the same speeds. All of a sudden, your two engines making just enough power to overcome wind resistance (which is the biggest force to overcome on a car travelling at speed, not mass) at the same speeds are pumping an equal amount of air (and therefore fuel) over a unit of time. Dynamically smaller engined car, while lighter, needs to be revved harder to match the acceleration of the bigger engined car, and the more constant gearchanges also takes an economy toll compared to being able to hold one gear.

That's right. They were banned because they made the car too fast, to a point where if an accident occurred the chassis would be less likely to save the driver. So, reduce the speed and reduce the kinetic energy the chassis needs to dissipate in a crash. Anyone who's talked to someone who races knows that they don't need electronic aids to be overly confident. Even without traction control and active aero etc, F1 drivers push it to the limit of the car's cornering speed. You can't say that all those things made the drivers confident of pushing their limits more - it just made the limits that they were pushing occur at a higher speed. Hence why, like I said, if quickness is the point then you have those things. I'm not talking about survivability or fun, just travelling a distance in the shortest possible time in the absence of f**k-ups. However, for your average Joe who isn't out there pushing the envelope every day or 100% focused on how their vehicle is travelling, those higher limits means that at the pace they do (which isn't meant to change as technology progresses) they have more handling / braking capacity left over. If they do find themselves in an emergency situation, without driver aids their actions may push the car past the limit. With those driver aids they might stay under the limit.

So does a rotor before interacting with the eccentric shaft. The thing is, I'm not talking about the output speed of the transmission (which I'll use as a generic term that covers both the regular gearbox and the transaxle). I'm asking about how you'd enumerate the gear ratio if you had to put a value down for reference. A gear ratio in a transmission, by unarguable definition, is the difference between its input value and its output value. So, what "output" do you take on a transaxle? That internal shaft speed before the final drive, or the shaft that leaves the housing? The effective gear ratio of a transaxle includes the final drive. As an example, if you look at the brochure for the 370Z they have a table with the list of gear ratios, and a final drive ratio. If Nissan were to print a similar table for the R35, for "accuracy" should they publish each the internal ratios multiplied with the final drive when they quote each gear (and either put a null value or repeat the diff drive again in the "final drive" row)? The disagreement between what "cycling" piece of hardware relating to the engine is should be measured is at the heart of the "true RPM" debate the guys are having. Both are trying to demonstrate correctness. Gary's arguing that an internal combustion engine's speed should be measured from the hardware that has direct physical contact with the combustion. The rotary guys are arguing that the powerplant's speed should be measured from the part of the powerplant that supplies said power to the rest of the powertrain. The fact that they have different, but from my perspective both technically valid, reasons means they'll endlessly be debating tangentally to each other. I'm trying to provide an analogy about whether you should be referencing "internal components" or "the output of the enclosure" to provide a numerical value for a component's behaviour. I thought I'd try and bring the two sides onto the same page, and move on to discussing something more interesting (and relevant) than what RPM an engine is technically doing.

I've driven Z33s with and without turbos (and they're lighter than the V35, with practically the same everything else). Trust me, they do.

I've had to cable tie a swaybar back on before, and drive around on it for a few weeks. I also had to cable tie my bonnet today when I bent it. I love cable ties. They do everything.

So does advanced driver training. That doesn't mean we should let unskilled drivers onto the road (even though we do, and look how well that philosphy is working out for us). What if someone goes head-on into you? You could be the most careful person on the planet, but it won't save you if you're stopped at a set of lights and a Domenic Torretto wannabe loses control and crashes into the front of your car. In my opinion, it depends on what you want. If you're talking about a driver's car, then as few aids as possible (or switchable, so the driver decides if they get them) gives you the most visceral experience. As much of a shitbox as it is, I love driving my old Swift GTi. No power steering, no power assisted brakes, and a light chassis powered by a very willing engine. It may not be fast, but its fun. My idea of the perfect road legal driver's car is the Elise (pre carpet, stereo, etc). Engine in the middle that has "just enough" power, RWD, no weight, no power assistance. As much as I like TVRs, I find them a little too overpowered for the chassis and the consensus from owners is that they're a handful. It may be exciting, but its also dangerous and overwhelming power isn't exactly the point in such a car. In a daily hack for the masses, driven by people who look at their cars as appliances to commute rather than something to be savoured, every item that helps keep them out of the scenery (and each other) is a good thing. My mum is useless behind the wheel, so I feel safer knowing that she's assisted by a whole alphabet of TLAs. In a "race" car, well implemented driver aids will always get you point to point quicker. Banning active aerodynamics, launch control, traction control, stability control etc in F1 cars made them slower. If your goal is to be consistently fast over a given distance, the key is to make the car easy to drive as much as outright speed or cornering G's. Most street car driver aids are too intrusive and heavy handed, but implemented properly (a la F1, or even the R35's whiz-bang transmission) they can ultimately make you quicker. If that's the point of the exercise, anything that makes you quicker should be there. I also don't regard airbags as a driver aid. It's a safety feature, and as much as possible they should always be present in your car. Saying that we should purposely make cars less safe to reduce overconfidence appeals to my sense of Darwinism, but ultimately seems like a pretty poor reason to put people's lives in danger.

Regarding the relevance of a rotary engine's eccentric shaft in determining "engine speed", I had a thought last night. Out of curiosity, since rotary guys want to treat the engine as an "entire unit" and measure the speed of the enclosure's output medium, rather than the speed of what occurs inside it, how do they describe the gear ratios in a transaxle? Lets say you have both a transaxle and a gearbox where the "shared" parts are physically identical. The difference is therefore the fact that the former has a final drive ratio inside the housing. For example's sake lets say that final drive is 3:1 (for poops and giggles). In 4th gear of our hypothetical gearbox, the output shaft of the bell housing spins at the same speed as the input shaft. Its ratio is therefore 1:1. In the transaxle when you select the fourth available gear, the output shafts of that housing spins slower. Would rotary drivers describe the transaxle's 4th gear ratio as 3:1 instead?

Bobbin Head is way too bumpy. And I've heard the cops are still monitoring the Old Pac pretty heavily, although I haven't seen that and in the past few times I've been up. I expect that, with summer coming on and the nights being warmer, we'll see more and more cruises going up at night...which in turn attract more and more cops.

From a technical perspective it was mentioned earlier in the thread that your tacho reads ignition pulses, so you're arguably "taking the RPM" value from the combustion chamber. After reading through the thread, I think that Gary's taking the stance that you should be measuring the amount of air passed through one cycle of every combustion chamber. An engine is always described as an air pump when you talk about base principles, and so the action that directly involves air moving through the engine should be the guiding factor of how you should measure its behaviour. In a piston engine that's a 1:1 ratio between the moving part of the combustion chamber and the crank but as far as Gary's concerned its a coincidence that they're the same. An engineer could have decided to stick a gear ratio in there "rotary style", but didn't. However, the fact that it is 1:1 has mislead people into quoting the speed of the wrong thing as a measure of engine behaviour, which happens to be correct by chance rather than comprehension. My interpretation of Gary's perspective on the engine speed (and I'm not necessarily supporting it, just explaining from what I see as his perspective) is similar to the old "boost equals power" misconception. That is an erroneous conclusion based on incomplete or mislead understanding of basic principles. Wind up the boost in most instances people have experience with and you see power gains, so certain people think the two are always directly related. However, in reality its air flow, not air pressure, that determines the power you can gain from tuning the induction system. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Gary. I'm enjoying the thread, as hard as the slog has been at times, and feel like I'm learning quite a bit.

Considering only 1 person we're aware of has tried it, you'll be entering uncharted waters. Discovery is always an expensive process. So is buying "spare parts" from an R35, like a front cut.

At least one person on a Skyline forum remembers that the original GT-R was 2WD and NA. The post I quoted never said anything about putting badges from newer car onto an old NA Skyline, just their presence at all. I'm pretty sure the KPGC10 had GT-R badges on it from the factory.

I didn't notice a loss in manouvrability when I went 245 all round. I actually found better front end grip, both into and out of a corner.

Most of the aftermarket ones are just shinier versions of the stock one. They're the same diameter, and the same shape. If you get a metal one it might be a bit noisier than the OEM plastic, but it'll also be a bit more succeptible to heat soak. If you're going for looks then go aftermarket. But if you're after performance and you can pull 8rwkW with the Popcharger & Z-Tube, I wouldn't leave the stock V35 intake tube in. I'd just look for the cheapest replacement you can find. 8rwkW is still a good gain on an already reasonably tuned NA motor.

How is that wrong? Do rotaries not use petrol for fuel? OK, lets take displacement out of the equation. Also, for fairness, we'll remove forced induction out of the loop so we don't get the usual "its easy to just wind on more boost" arguments when people compare FI engines on numbers alone....which I noticed you started using when comparing against the R35 GT-R. A stock RENESIS engine (Mazda's latest-and-greatest whizz-bang rotary) doesn't make that much fuel for the power it generates. Its power and torque figures are basically bang-on with Honda's F20C, but needs a lot more fuel to do it. The F20C isn't particularly big or heavy either, if your unit of efficiency relates to the powerplant's volume to power output. Are you going to start accusing SAU people of being Honda fanboys now? That'll be as hilarious as the guy who said we were all Commodore fans on here. In the real world when the RX-8 was compared to the 350Z (its closest competitor) on road loops by car mags, the V6 pushing an extra 100kg manages to use less fuel to travel the same distance at approximately the same pace. By any objective measure rotaries are fuel inefficient. Off-boost they're "not bad", but with their inherently low compression ratio they're not extracting as much power out of the petrol injected as they could be compared to a small piston engine generating a similar amount of power. Your expectations must be set extremely low if you think that a stock engine not grenading itself within 3 years can be deemed as "reliable". Or even 8 years, if you take Mazda USA's revised RX8 warranty. Even Fords/Holdens, whos production lines seem to have the loosest tolerances this side of a nymphomaniac hippie, generally stay together for longer than that if you treat them the way the manufacturer recommended.

Your average Joe, who's never seen any opposite lock, is going to panic (and possibly freeze) the first time their car fails to do what its told. Understeer is safer for them to recover from. From a power on perspective, they're just going to pop off the gas and maybe steer more. If you're power understeering, the first but should eventually correct the issue. In an oversteer moment you need to use the steering wheel delicately and gradually lift the throttle, which is not something the license test requires you to know. If they don't steer they'll spin out. If they do steer to hard and/or pop off the throttle, the tail will snap and they'll fishtail. Under brakes, if the car understeers because they've gone in too fast, their slowing down will hopefully get the fronts to eventually fall back into the grip circle. If the tail slides under brakes, they'll have to do that steering thing and stop braking...which is counter-instinctive to most people in a scary situation.

(Apologies in advance for the long post) No, VDC is independent of the first 2 systems and only works while you're cornering. However, it does use the same hardware. EBD controls brake bias front to rear, depending on the weight on the rear of the car. ABS detects wheel lockup under brakes, and releases pressure to that caliper and reapplies it. TCS detects wheelspin under power via the ABS sensors, and closes the throttle butterfly to cut power. The system has 5 inputs that I'm aware of (individual wheel speed via the ABS sensors, yaw via an accelerometer in the middle of the car, steering angle, throttle position, brake position) and works in conjunction with the above safety systems. On the output side it has the ability to control your throttle butterfly, and the clamping force in each individual caliper. For a given wheel speed and steering lock you should turn at a certain rate. If the value that it's calculated is different to what the yaw sensor is telling it, then it knows that you've deviated from your desired line. The difference in value will tell the car whether its turned too little (understeer) or too much (oversteer). The VDC also knows that, for a certain amount of steering angle, your inside wheels should also be turning a certain percentage slower than the outside wheels. If those relative speeds don't fall within its acceptable range, it knows you've got a bit of wheel slip. The system is accurate down to a single wheel. If your 2 front wheels are rotating in the appropriate ratio and your outside rear wheel is spinning at the same speed as the front, but your inner rear wheel is not spinning at the correct speed or ratio, then it knows you've lost traction with the inside rear wheel. The VDC will then cut power using its TCS component, and also adjust the force on the brakes to bring the car back onto the ideal line with all four wheels spinning as fast as they should be. It doesn't matter if you're under throttle or under brakes, VDC will always be there to help you (TCS only works if you're on the power). Technically on your car the TCS is considered a part of the VDC so its not really independently switchable. ABS and EBD can never be switched off (it can only be "disabled" by causing a fault in the system). - As an example of how VDC works, lets say you were to get push understeer under throttle. If the push is gentle it might compensate by just grabbing the inside front brake, to pull the nose back into the corner. If the push is heavy, it'll cut power as well. If its very heavy, it might also grab the rear brakes to slow the car down. If you were to oversteer it'd definitely cut power, and grab the rear brakes to slow them down (TCS only cuts power). Some sources I've read said it'll also grab the front brakes to stop you from fishtailing because you've suddenly slowed the rear wheels so much. ABS also only triggers when you're close to locking up. If the VDC detects that your trail braking attempt has gotten you in trouble (you could understeer or oversteer), it'll release the pressure in the appropriate calipers to bring the car back on line. This might be well before the tyre has almost locked up, where the ABS wouldn't trigger. The guys I've spoken to who've tracked their 350Zs with VDC on have noticed that it makes the car more understeery. They've also noticed that it reacts a little slowly, which has given it a HICAS-like reputation for annoyance among Z33 drivers. For example if they go around a corner and understeer, they'll come off the gas to tuck the nose back on line. The VDC, detecting the slip, will also do some braking and pull the nose too far in. They'll react by unwinding some lock, but the VDC will detect the nose coming too far and also let the nose drift. Which causes understeer again. Rinse and repeat. If you just press the button, the information I picked up from Best Motoring's "350Z Shock" is that the VDC stay off unless you tap the brakes during a "moment". Tsuchiya noticed that he could inertial drift and powerslide the car all day long, but the moment he tried to initiate a slide with the brakes the VDC would kick in anyway, and straighten the car. I can't remember if the car was TCSing when he tried to throttle on after then, or if he had to wait for the car to straighten up and "be safe" before being able to to break traction with the throttle again.

One of the reasons would be that homologation rules requires a piston engine for those categories, I'd say. It might have something to do with the teams, and in some cases fans. Can you imagine your average gap-toothed redneck tolerating a rotary powered Nascar racer? Or anything that didn't have a V8?

What if you actually own a NA GT-R?

You don't even need to take it off to see it. Here's the AuDM intake pipe on my car: See that branch off the intake tube, just right of the strut brace? The one that seems to be a shortcut to the intake plenum in the photo, but in reality goes nowhere? That's the resonator. Here's a USDM engine bay: No "appendix" on the intake tract.

VDC can control braking force on all four wheels, as well as overriding your throttle pedal and closing the butterfly (which is the TCS part).

If you take something without the owner's explicit permission, that's the definition of theft. Government bodies have legislative exceptions (such as towing a vehicle they believe is abandoned) but a private citizen has diddly squat. Hypothetically, if I leave my car out front of my place (or a mate's place) when I go on holidays, does that mean you can take it because I'm not there to "claim" it? I haven't driven my "weekend" car for several weeks since I'm running in the motor on my other car. It's got a coat of dust on it, and a fair amount of flower petals/leaves on it. I can't say I go check on it every day. Does that mean you can pop around to my place and take it because you think I don't want it? Finding something and not returning it is still theft. If you leave your mobile in a restaurant and I pick it up, if you find out I took it afterwards you're well within your rights to demand I return it. And if the guy turns around later and comes back for it? You've got no title on it. Leaving something alone for any period of time doesn't remove ownership. If you decide to part it out, then there's no evidence on what was in the car originally and it's up to the registered owner to make up a value for the car. The registered owner's word against someone who took property without permission, and then stripped it down. What if there's still money oweing on it? If the bank repossesses it, you'd have sweet f**k-all chance of fighting it even if you did actually buy the vehicle off the previous owner and have the paperwork in your name. I think you should get some class. Assuming the car has been voluntarily "discarded" by the existing owner, it makes you sound like the kind of person who goes searching through rubbish bins.

CHGLDN001094875 I've driven my Z33 around for 3-4 years with the same sized tyres all round, with no issues. I'd agree with you that VDC being on is a better thing for safety, though, if you're not driving the car hard. I've had a couple of "moments" where TCS has aided me. When I'm going for it my mind is tuned in to driving, so I can catch those little moments. The VDC/TCS is more of a hinderance in this situation. When I'm cruising around, though, I'm not in "the zone" and something unexpected (like a patch of dropped oil at night, or leaves/gravel mid corner) can catch you unawares. In that instance it'd be a good thing. VDC never gets distracted. That said, I did have a moment once where the tail aquaplaned around a corner while I was "taking it easy" and I corrected it...only to have the TCS kick in, unbalance the car, and cause it to slide more. If the TCS had just left well enough alone I would have been fine, but with it present I had to work harder to bring the car back. Unless you live in an area with very low grip (like snow) I don't see it as being necessary for an Australian car driven by a competent and sensible driver (even if they're not paying 100% attention).