browny

Up until very recently the RTA had a 15% rule. Replacement engines with less than 15% increase in capacity didn't need formal engineering. However you couldn't be too liberal in its application - basically you were only allowed you to put in engines of the same design such as changing a red 186 to red 202 etc. What you couldn't do under this rule was go from say a 202 (3.3L) to an RB20 and argue it needs no engineering because it's smaller in capacity. Totally different design, different ADRS etc. Non factory replacement engines use the weight multipliers - however the ones you have posted are out of date. The new guidelines have split the weight range into three. For the larger cars they have actually relaxed the NA capacity but tightened up on blown engines. RB25DET isn't a factory engine for the R32. Maybe some will buy your argument but IMO it is technically something that needs to be formally engineered (which should be damn easy for a conversion to a stock RB25).

Actually I think pin 54 is a throttle closed switch which the RB20 ECU uses to go into idle mode. The throttle sensor box thingy also contains a WOT (probably closer to 75%) switch that from what I can remember is connected to the auto trans and not used by the ecu. However if the RB25 ecu doesn't need that exact throttle closed signal to determine when it should be idling, then I can't see a problem leaving it disconnected.

How the hell did you do that to the pintle cap?

Cut your losses and walk away? Seems like you have a hell of a lot of expenses coming up if you try and fix it.

Doesn't the VL dump also have the wastegate integrated into it, meaning it's a PITA if you want anything different to stock? (ie you have to fiddle around cutting it up and welding to cast iron) And then you end up with an old design plain bearing turbo thats good for about the same amount of power stock as an RB20 turbo.

Hey Roy & others, There's a topic come up on Performance Forums lately where one of the guys has come across a RB20 box with some sort of custom close ratio gearset in it. Basically they are trying to figure out who might have done the work and whether it's worth the effort of trying to sell it off. Have a look: http://www.performanceforums.com/forums/sh...php?p=839536283

General instructions for installing any tacho: 1. Buy tacho 2. Hope tacho works off 0-5V square wave, otherwise buy tacho booster or find some other way around it 3. Splice signal into wire from ECU pin 7 4. Connect power to ign source 5. Connect ground to ground source 6. If it's backlit splice the light into the lighting circuit 7. Find somewhere to put tacho and mount it.

If the pull up resistor doesn't work then you can get devices that will produce the correct signal for your tacho. Pull up resistor = 20c fix. Otherwise $50-100 for a booster. Depends what the tacho is designed for as to what it'll need. Most aftermarket stuff is either 12V, high voltage (for coil type ignition) or multi use. OEM stuff, well that varies.

How is it all connected? The tacho pin at the ECU does not output a signal as such. It only switches the circuit to ground so as to produce the square wave. Unless the pin is also provided with a voltage source from somewhere (the OEM R32 tacho provides 5V internally) then you won't generate any signal. Well, I guess technically you do generate a signal, but a 0V-0V square wave isn't exactly useful.

What signal are you getting and how do you know it's faulty?

AFAIK the tacho system (tacho + ecu) works off a 5V square wave. And as said above, the ECU end only provides the pulsing, not the voltage.

What about giving proengines a call? http://proengines.com.au/ Their posts on here are always very helpful.

I wondered the same thing. Their product seems to be aimed mostly at Harleys which have reliability problems with the OEM PCV system. It doesnt appear to be a substitute for a catch can at all, just an "improved" PCV valve.

Engine revs change during gearchanges anyway tho, so I still can't see the downside of having a lightened flywheel. If you are going to use this argument then you would also have to say that weight savings anywhere on the drivetrain side (or anywhere else in the car) will have a negative effect during gear changes. ie car will slow down more quickly.

I don't understand your logic. The tailshaft is a rotating piece of the drivetrain, exactly like the flywheel. I'd argue that there is a lot more bang for buck in things with large diameter because inertia does after all have a r^2 component. I'd pick flywheel lightening to be biggest bang for buck for reasons of weight, angular velocity range and diameter. The rest would be hard to separate. Wheels get the vote for weight and diameter but you want the weight removed from the extremities, which may be difficult to achieve. Tailshaft is relatively skinny so i'd think it's bang for buck is pretty low.