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 Non factory replacement engines use the weight multipliers - however the ones you have posted are out of date.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.

My understanding of things, which is from a NSW perspective (but the draft oz wide mod rules are very similar to these so watch out those of you from other states), is that the big problem is proving ADR compliance, specifically ADR37 (which includes drive cycle testing). Factory turbo options comply with ADR37. Some of the more common turbo kits *may* have been put through the testing if the company putting the kit together have gone to the right amount of effort. Since we are talking imports, then it's unlikely there is any "legal" (as in ADR37 legal) kit for a skyline. Anything DIY is almost certainly not legal. Even though it might pass, it hasn't been proven to.

I have to wonder why you picked people to work on your car who seemingly have NFI what they are doing. I find these finger pointing type threads quite amusing, especially the ones where said accuser ends up looking like an asshat.

Are you trying to turn this into an ethical debate? Does this mean you always buy Australian made products? Racespec, What I'm advocating is that people don't buy on price alone, or country alone. IMO quality is more important than either (to a point), as is knowing that someone genuine is going to be there if you have issues (which happens with even the "best" products). If you think I'm not championing GCG's product, i'm not, I think I know where they come from, but that's really only a guess. I really don't care where they come from if it's a good product. What I'm suggesting is that people look at the options available and don't get too carried away with country of origin or saving a couple of hundred bucks, which really is SFA in the scheme of things. Personally I would look at the Aussie made products. There's one that sells for similar to GCG's that I think looks the goods.

Ditto, can't see why country of manufacture matters at all. If I was in the market for a manifold, then I'd really be budgeting about the money that the GCG one is going for. Sure if I can get one for cheaper, thats good quality and I'm happy with then it's a win, but I wouldn't buying something that a POS just because I want to save $500. An extra $500 isn't big money in the scheme of things.

Out of interest, what sort of cost are the above JJap/GCG/Ebay manifolds?

ok, some diagrams: If I was going to remove the system altogether I'd block off the connections to the manifold and leave the tank vent open, but locate it in a suitable place so it's not going to fill the cabin up with fuel stink. If I was going to disable the current system I'd fit a small tee (hidden obviously) into the tank vent line so it can vent as normal and I'd block the purge line into the manifold. However, I can't see the point in diabling this system. It appears to only purge when under vacuum, which for a turbo car, isn't exactly a major concern from a power perspective.

Well if you are in oz then too bad. The carbon canister has to stay. If you remove it then expect to get hassled and possibly fined by cops/rego/EPA. The solution to your dilemma is to get two vacuum lines fitted to your plenum. I'll scan and post up the diagrams showing how this system works this afternoon.

I don't know your exact circumstances but I get the feeling you are in the US doing some sort of conversion? If you can get away with it easily (ie don't have to go through any rigorous engineering/rego process) then I can understand why you might want to leave it out to save some stuffing around. If it's not so easy to get away with (like our system here) then I reckon the stuffing around to install it will easily outweigh the effort that you will spend trying to fool cops/engineers/rego etc. I'll look up my manuals at home and get back to you with my thoughts on how to remove the system. IIRC the fuel tank simply has a small line that runs into the charcoal canister. I can't see any problems just leaving this line unconnected (as long as its going to vent to somewhere sensible). FWIW the vent line on my 60's car just pokes through the boot floor. If you are going to leave it open I can't even see the point of a filter.

The charcoal canister is part of the evaporative emissions control system. It is basically a storage container that captures fuel tank vapours and purges them into the intake manifold. It's a mandatory piece of pollution equipment. In the real world I reckon there would be sfa gains for a street car. Possibly none at all if the system is like others and only purges at idle/cruise (when it doesn't really matter). Personally I'd keep it just to avoid the hassles of explaining to the cops/rego why it's not there. If you do try blocking things off, then make sure you know what you are doing. A fuel tank that loses it's ability to vent might cause some issues.

One possibility is that Nissan (or the company they contract) do the extra surface finishing of the Tomeii bearings as a final step in the manufacture of the OEM items. That way they would still end up in the OEM wrapping. It might not make economic sense for Tomeii to buy, maintain and operate millions of dollars of manufacturing gear for a relatively low volume component.