pixel8r

Very little you can do without some kind of "tunable" ecu (piggyback or complete replacement, a topic which has been covered many times on this forum). I think the only thing a dyno will allow you to do is maybe add some ignition timing safely (which will likely help with fuel economy a little, and give a bit more power/response) and also give you a baseline kw readout as well as show you your Air/Fuel ratio graph. A piggyback ecu like the SAFC2 (Apexi Super Air Flow Converter) will allow you to tune the Air/Fuel ratios (AFR) and something like the SITC (Super Ignition Timing Converter) will allow you to tune your ignition timing independently. If you have an SAFC but not an SITC, you will notice that tuning the AFR's will also affect your ignition timing as a side-effect. The SITC allows you to adjust ignition timing independently of AFR's, thus giving you more control over the tune. Rough guess - you'd be looking at about ~120-125awkw at the moment (approx. 140-145rwkw if you use a 2wd dyno). I personally dont think an air filter will show much performance gain. I have an apexi one, but I couldn't honestly say it gives me any more kw than a standard filter. I've also used a K&N filter on a previous turbo car. After AFM problems from it, I replaced it with a cheap bosch one and couldn't tell the difference in performance. The one modification with the biggest power gain will be an exhaust. That should give you ~20awkw on its own if you get a good free-flowing one (although it will make the car a bit louder - make sure you get 2 mufflers - NOT a resonator - to reduce drone due to the large boot). After that an SAFC and a bit more boost will happily see you getting over 150-160awkw, but dont go over about 11 psi on the stock turbo if you want it to last. Good luck with it. PS. I'd definitely prefer boostworx to turbotune. Shaun has a lot more experience with tuning nissan imports and many people on this forum trust and recommend him and dont take their cars anywhere else.

Not sure if everyone is aware of this (I wasn't). From wikipedia: "The end of the Stagea Nissan ceased production of the Stagea in early June 2007, Nissan Japan stated that it would continue to sell the remaining stock of the vehicle but that production of the vehicle had ended." I wonder if they have a replacement planned...

Your cheapest option will be to import one. I'd agree around $35k is what you're looking at. I've seen some as low as $30k but as with all things you get what you pay for. If thats what you want then get the 260RS. Getting a RS4 and doing all the conversion work yourself will likely cost you well over $40k by the time you're finished with it, and that still wont give you the improved 260RS chassis. Basically, the 260RS is almost an entirely different car to the RS4, its stronger in almost every way, and IMO looks a lot more agressive. It also has awesome performance in stock form (does a high 13 sec 1/4 mile i believe). Very good value for money, but then again, in a different market, so is the RS4. You can get a good s2 RS4 these days for about $16-18k. The 260RS will hold its value a lot better than the RS4. And as there are new stagea models available for import and compliance now the price of stageas will continue to fall....sadly But the way I see it, as long as I get value from the car in the (hopefully long) time I own it, then who cares what it sells for? I bought it to drive it, not as an investment.

Once a year. I'd highly recommend you dont ignore it. Its as important as servicing your engine IMO. Be aware some places will say they do "transmission servicing" but all they do is change the fluids. To get a proper service done, take it to an auto trans specialist. They will actually open it up and inspect it/tighten bands as needed etc. as well as changing the fluids. You get a more thorough job done if you take it to an auto transmission specialist. Average cost is about $130-150.

I could be wrong on this but as I understand it, the g-force sensors are used in conjunction with the throttle position and revs to guage if the car is moving as fast as expected, and if its not, it will try to gain more traction by transferring torque to the front (or back, as the need might be). So you dont even need to be moving for ATTESA to work. Try putting your foot to the floor from a standstill, it will quickly transfer torque to the front even if no wheels slip (ie. dry road) and well before you're accelerating fast. There is some very complex logic in the 16-bit processor that is that heart of ATTESA. It responds within 1/100th of a second. There are sensors that measure g-force longitudinally (ie. front to back) and also sensors that measure g-force latitudinally (ie. side to side) and the computer uses these as well as other sensors (throttle position, revs) to work out what to do. Also note that the torque transfer is completely variable, anywhere from 95% rear to about 50:50. So its not like it waits for there to be a problem and then instantly transfers 50% of torque to the front. It will continually vary the torque split as it sees fit. Planting your foot will basically tell it to do whatever it takes to improve traction, which normally means transferring up to 50% of the torque to the front wheels but it may already be halfway there depending on the situation. The two accounts above of the AWD being shaky when pulling out of a slide, (but still successful) are evidence that it CAN save you from a slide in the wet where a RWD possibly wouldn't. So how people can say this isn't safer than RWD with regards to slippery corners etc. is beyond me. Just trying to be rational about it... You might not be hooning when you start to slide, but putting your foot on the accelerator slowly as Mr_RS4 did, should stop you from losing traction altogether and in this situation you will have MORE control and MORE chance of pulling out of it than in a RWD car. This equates to safety in my opinion. Sorry if I sound a bit arrogant - its not meant to come across that way

Like other people have said, stick with 98 octane (or better). Also you will get best results if you stay with the same brand of fuel too. I'd stay away from anything less than 98 octane unless you have to use it (ie. in the country). Your fuel economy will likely be better with 98 octane anyway so the overall cost will probably not be that different. Its also better for your engine so it will save you money in the long run

This sounds more like it. I have a s2 stagea (r34 engine, gearbox), which is quite a bit heavier than a skyine and on 48L my car will get over 400km around town. Its got 160awkw too so its not stock either. My guess is that you should at least be getting more than 350km on this amount of fuel, modified or not. If its doing less than that, you need to either adjust your driving style or look for whats causing the problem - eg. check your O2 sensor. A good free-flowing exhaust, SAFC or similar, and improved ignition timing will help your fuel economy as well, not to mention a bigger turbo (off boost while cruising).

So I'm assuming the ATTESA DID pull you back in eventually? Is it something that could be improved with some kind of defensive driving course (no offence to you, this is not a reference to your ability)? What I'm interested in is if ATTESA did ultimately correct you and pull you out of a sticky situation then it is still a win for the AWD system. The same situation in a RWD stagea could have been much worse, since putting your foot down would possibly see the back kick out further Also I believe the rear wheels dont actually need to slip for ATTESA to transfer torque to the front. It works on g-force sensors as well as throttle position and possibly other things, so putting your foot to the floor will usually get the front wheels working, regardless of any slippage (not that this is a good idea in the wet). So what you did in applying more and more throttle slowly or pumping the throttle a bit is probably the correct way to handle this situation.

Ok, well I'm not sure if you'll get any better economy from the stagea. They're more powerful and heavier than the 380, which doesn't help with fuel economy. They're also designed for japanese fuel and will require 96 octane fuel or preferably 98 octane (japanese fuel is something like 106 RON so the closer you get to that the better). Most people on here seem to average around 10L/100km at highway speeds and somewhere between 12 and 14L/100km in city driving / peak hour traffic. The stagea has a 68L tank, but if you drive till the needle hits empty you'll have used only around ~58L. Putting it all together I'd say you'd probably find the fuel economy pretty similar to the 380, depending on how you drive. If AWD isn't a requirement, you can go for a RWD only stagea, which should do slightly better on fuel due to less drivetrain losses and less weight. And/or if you get a manual, you'll get better fuel economy AND it will hold its value better than the increasingly popular auto stagea. At the end of the day, it is a performance oriented wagon, so fuel economy is a secondary priority with this car. You need to weigh it up as a whole package. All things considered, its still hard to beat for price and overall value and features.

I have some good news for you. The solution to the slow gear changes is to install a MV Automatics shift kit. MV Automatics are located in Blackwood SA, so you dont have too far to go Its only a few hundred more than a regular transmission service and will improve your shift quality. It does make the 1st-2nd shift a bit more noticeable but the smoothness depends on how you drive. Drive it hard and it will clunk into gear (not uncomfortable however), or drive it smooth and you'll barely notice its changing gears. In stock form its not too bad unless you try to use the tiptronic like a manual. If you use the tiptronic a lot, and/or just want quicker shifts, then a shift kit is a must I'd highly recommend it

It is indeed a series 2 engine. I had the same questions about my S2 when I bought it, although it did have the NEO cover. Main differences are the larger throttle body and different looking cam gear on the front. There are likely other visible differences here but those are the main two I'm aware of. The compliancer of my car had listed the engine as 173kw so it made me concerned that I'd been ripped off, but its easy to tell the difference once you know what to look for. In any case, the only other possibility is that someone in japan may have swapped the s2 engine for a s1 engine, as the rest of the car is obviously a s2

The whole two-tone thing is subie-ish. That alone would put me off, although it is likely a nice car. I wouldn't pay that for it though.

Spotted a silver stagea series 1 in town this afternoon about 4:30. Parked right next to it at the lights and exchanged the "thumbs up". Seen heaps of stageas around these days. Is it just me or are they becoming quite popular?

That makes no sense. If you're going fast enough for 4 wheels to break traction, you're definitely going fast enough for 2 wheels to break traction. So if all 4 wheels are sliding in either case, what does it matter if the front wheels are powered or not? with AWD you have more chance of getting out of that situation than with RWD, as pumping the accelerator will offer you twice as many tires to grip with... Remember it doesn't just send torque to the front wheels. It sends torque to the wheels that are getting (or likely to get) the most traction. Hence if your front wheels are slipping at all (even for 1/100th of a second) it will transfer torque more to the rear wheels... Some people may wonder why the stagea and gtr has latitudinal gforce sensors as well as longitudinal ones, well this is why. It obviously has programming in it to handle sliding sideways. Have a look at the topgear videos of the R34 GTR. They get it almost straight sideways and it handles beautifully. I think the above argument is true for FWD cars, but not AWD...but this topic isn't about FWD. Out of interest, has anyone EVER broken traction with all 4 wheels in a stagea or GTR? I'd guess its extremely difficult to lose control due to traction loss in either of these cars... I've planted my foot on a soaking wet road to drop it back to 1st and it just takes off as per normal. You can tell that there is a bit of slippage, but not on all wheels, so you never completely lose traction. The only time the back will step out is when going round a corner, but the front is constantly trying to pull you back into line...and it does.

how ripped off was I then? when i bought my silvia i didn't even realise the previous owner had filled in the hole in the bonnet and ripped out half the cylinders... glad I sold it then cos now I drive a stock standard jet powered stagea For the record I think nissan bought these off bugatti... lol

Its not very noticeable at all...but you will be aware of it. Its not uncomfortable at all and I'd 100% recommend it. I'm from adelaide too so I just dropped the car off in the morning and picked it up in the afternoon. Cost me only a couple hundred more than just a transmission service...well worth it! The gearchange is less jerky than driving a manual in my opinion (nothing wrong with manuals, dont get me wrong - i'm just using it as a comparison).

I'm at the point where I dont want the car to necessarily go any faster. It should be capable of mid 14 sec 1/4 mile times as it is so I'm happy with that. I have the exhaust but I need a fmic, but in many ways I would prefer a suspension upgrade before anything else now. If I was to do it all again I'd probably do suspension first. I think it would make THE biggest difference to driving the car. Exhaust would be a close second...as that is possibly the most important performance mod...without one no other performance mod is really worth it.

I believe what you guys are thinking about is the fact that an AWD stagea is faster in AWD than in RWD (ie. with the front tailshaft removed). I'd say the lighter RWD-only version is a bit quicker than the AWD - and for the record there isn't much traction needed with a stock stagea..being so heavy. Its only when you increase the power that you run into traction issues. Mine is AWD and I wouldn't want it any other way now after driving it for 14+ months... Another thing I'd like to mention is that AWD IS safer in the wet than RWD because its less likely to lose traction in any given situation. Again, I think what people are meaning when they say AWD isn't any safer is actually that RWD isn't unsafe in the wet. This is also true. You're not more likely to have accidents in the wet just because you chose a RWD car. To put it another way - if you're thinking of getting AWD just because you feel that it will be safer than RWD in the wet, ask yourself how fast you're going to be driving in order to need the extra safety. If you drive sensibly in the wet then there is likely no difference between RWD and AWD as far as safety is concerned. However, if you like the idea that even in the wet you can put your foot to the floor and still have traction (in a straight line), then AWD is for you. The only way you're likely to get wheelspin with AWD is either on a skidpan or accelerating around tight corners (the back will step out a little way if you try hard enough). I dont think RWD would give much better fuel economy (depends more on driving style) than AWD because when cruising, there isn't much torque being sent to the front wheels. I believe it defaults to something like 95% rear, 5% front torque split until it needs more torque at the front wheels. So the drivetrain loss would be minimal. This is why I prefer ATTESSA to other full-time AWD systems. Extra traction when you need it, and fuel savings when you dont Any fuel savings would be more due to the weight difference than anything else. AWD is heavier, but like people said, you can make up for that with a few simple mods. If your only reason for going RWD is to go faster then probably just get a skyline In the end its the buyer's decision, but hopefully this thread has helped that decision...

Spotted a silver stagea series 2 on south road going up tapleys hill. Followed me for a bit then turned off just past Hilltop. Nice ride! They look good in silver

Get it serviced professionally as soon as possible. I dont just mean a fluid change, I mean someone who will open it up and check it out. I've had an auto trans die on me before (lost all gears one by one within about a week, starting with 4th and working down). Much cheaper if it can be fixed early... I've had the odd time when my stagea will free-rev but each time its been because the gear lever didn't click into the D position properly. Hopefully its only a minor problem for you...

I second that. I had the same problem on mine - right cv boot. Took it to a CV joint specialist and had the boot replaced for $80. Apparently no problems with the cv joint itself. Hopefully yours is the same.

Advanced Front Midship would be referring to the new chassis design Nissan have switched to with all their latest models (starting with the 2001 model stagea and most of their cars after 2002 - infiniti, maxima, 350z etc). The engine was moved further back, behind the front wheels, and it seems the front wheels have been moved closer to the front of the car, similar to bmw's if you know what I mean. This change makes a big difference to ride quality and handling. A big enough difference to warrant putting "advanced front midship" in big letters in the engine bay

^^ nice

Read through the rest of that thread and you'll see that it is not yet cleared for compliance. It is being put through various tests at the moment I believe. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

I really need to install my boost guage and then I'll be able to work it out for myself... anyway, I'm trying using the tiptronic this week just to use the gears a bit more and see if that helps. I'm not driving the car any harder, just basically using different shift points. The car feels much more responsive this way too - as I can keep it in its most efficient rpm range easier (anyone know what rpm range the RB25's most efficient in?). After reading a bit about O/D, it seems that driving around in 4th at 1500rpm could actually be using more fuel - depending if the engine is under more load at this rpm than say 2000rpm in 3rd. Also, I only have an SAFC to tune with which I think only works at anything over 50% throttle so I dont think I can tune on/off boost or anything - i think it just checks the throttle position and if more than 50% then it uses its load points to work out what to do. Its not very complex (but I'm happy with the results). Will post up what I find out with regards to different driving styles and the effect on fuel economy... But so far what I've found is that trying to always have a soft foot and just coast up to the speed limit all the time is NOT the most fuel efficient way to drive. I actually got slightly worse fuel economy than when I'm not making any effort to conserve fuel. Good enough excuse for me