warps

I'd ignore anything to do with the sun. That's more a function of how much time it's spent parked in the elements than actually driving. Assume an average of 40km/h, then a car with 200,000km will have spent 5000 hours being driven. This is a small fraction of the 20 years (over 175,000 hours) some of these cars have been on the planet, so the sun's effect during "drive time" will almost be negligible. Carpets and pedal rubbers can be replaced. Seats can be retrimmed or replaced. If you can drive the car, you will get a feel for how tight everything is. That is probably the safest way to tell the age of the car. By all means, the other items listed (worn mats, pedals, gear stick, seat etc.) give an indication, but can be easily masked over.

Armor all is evil It's basically a mix of solvent and sealer. The solvent gets in and attacks the plastic (vinyl / whatever) and the sealer seals it in to let it keep attacking. You be the judge. And it costs about 25c a bottle to make.

Ah, fair enough. If I were to buy this car it would be the third race / rally / project car in a row I've brought to QLD from East Maitland. Starting to become a habit . Pity I don't do much work in the hunter valley anymore. Used to be able to claim the travel costs as business expenses

Have you come up with a figure you're chasing for it yet? Does it still have the Cusco coilovers and FMIC? Do you have the stock IC still? Looks like you haven't done any seam welding in the engine bay - correct?

These this seem to be getting good reviews, if you can get past the anti korea bias. Kia Sorrento Huyndai Santa Fe Both powered by the new 145kW, 450Nm TDi engine developed by the Germans, and have 2,500kg towing capacity. They'll use less fuel than a Turbo Falcon could even manage (in fact are rated at about 7.5l/100km, which is obviously optimistic, but they still return good economy). Modern Turbodiesels aren't as slow as you might think, either. I have no trouble keeping up with traffic in my 2.5 Pathfinder. Of course I won't be blowing away SS commodores, but they have no trouble in traffic, and top gear acceleration on the freeway is fantastic.

Yeh, that was kinda my point. The RX8 box only has one overdriven gear as per the table below (early RX8, not the current model) 1st 3.76 2nd 2.269 3rd 1.645 4th 1.187 5th 1 6th 0.843 As you can see, 2nd to 6th are very close for a factory box (with a useless 1st). Even the 6th gear is only slightly overdriven (the turbo boxes are 0.76 something). In fact, the early RX8 boxes are closer together than the Albin dog box set for the S4/5 gearbox (which I gather is made for big torque turbos) I see that the current model ratios shown on the Mazda website are a lot wider than that. I don't know when the ratios changed, but the early stuff is what you'd be getting if you were looking second hand. I know that if you have a wide spaced box, a low diff can help a little (effectively the gears are closer together in higher gears, so a low ratio diff will help to take advantage of this). However, the effect is only very marginal. I dare say the GTR gearbox standard ratios would be poo with a track rotary. The only saving grace may be that the car is so light, it might not matter what gear he's in . I found the biggest problem in the gravel was trying to keep the wheels spinning. If the engine started to bog down (very easy with a 51 weber on a 12A) the ratios were too far apart to keep the wheels spinning, specially with new rubber. Once you tore the tread off the tyres, it was no problem keeping the rear wheels spinning. If he wants to retain the 4WD capabillity, then yes that gets a little more complex. For the extra weight and complexity, as well as driveline losses, I would expect that a simple RWD setup would be the fastest way to go. As to the weight of the rotary - yeh I said that they're no featherweight, but their overall packaging is compact, making them very effective in terms of hp per volume (physical volume, not swept volume which is a whole separate discussion). If CAMS factors into this in any way, then the capacity advantage of the rotary may be of benefit. If that has no bearing, then yeah, go nuts (and I point him back to my original suggestion of a 500hp L98).

That's the turbos, intercooler and all that crap that adds to the weight. A NA rotor is light and compact for the power it puts out. No featherweight, but certainly nowhere near as heavy as the RB lumps.3.5 alloy V8 is another fairly compact light engine. Stock they were poo, but again parts readily available and 350hp not that difficult. Not compared to a proper CR box obviously, but then wont cost you $4-6k either. For a factory mass produced box that will bolt straight up to the 13B, they have very close ratios. Who cares how many overdriven gears it has? That can be fixed with diff ratios.Yes, if money was no object, then you'd go some fully hektik sequential job for eleventy one dollars. As I said, quite a few rally guys are going for this option and loving them. Having rallied a rotary myself, I know how important a CR box is with a peaky engine in gravel (specially if you have a well sorted rear end and plenty of traction). For these boxes to be working so well in rally rotors, the ratios obviously aren't too bad. Again, I am NOT comparing to a *proper* CR competition box. I'm offering a very effective option for a realistic budget. For the same money, you'll struggle to come close in an overall package which fits his requirements. I'm not a blind rotary tragic, but I can see their benefits.

You won't go too far wrong with a good injected 13B. If you can pick up a Renesis and 6 speed out of an RX8 then you'll have a good package with plenty of potential (porting is basically Peripheral Port at high revs). The 6 speed has nice close ratios from 2nd to 6th, so a lot of guys use them in rally cars. First gear is a bit useless on dirt with a super low diff, but perfect for driving the car onto the trailer if you have an angry clutch. A ported S4/5 RX7 motor is apparently the ultimate, according to the IP guys (but they're not allowed to run PP). If you have class restrictions, the 13B will put you in the 2.0 - 2.5L category. Add a turbo and it pushes you out to about 4 litres - if you're racing in any CAMS type events.

Renesis 13B - not a torque monster, but certainly not bad. With decent exhaust and ECU, you will have it easily over 200kW. As it's a current model engine, emissions shouldn't be too much hassle. 9000RPM from the factory should be enough, too. Alternatively a 13BT will have all the torque you need, with 500hp readily accessible. If you are looking for 230kW from a small, compact engine, then I suspect that you will have trouble with emissions / driveability / lag at any rate, so from that point of view, a modern rotary won't be too bad. If it's all out NA grunt you want, then an L98 is the go. Lighter than the RB, with an easy and reliable 500hp available with little outlay. You should be able to pick up a brand new crate motor for around $6k or so. Problem is they're fairly bulky and tall, so might not fit your purpose, and the T56 is heavy, and a bit of a p-i-g (it changed it to cop ) to use.

What the hell is wrong with heavy clutches anyway? My wife hates these modern light clutches as much as I do. We both loved the heavy clutch in the GTS2 we owned many years ago (was a heavy sumbitch, but great feel - the clutch that is, not my wife ). all others since then have felt like shopping trolley clutches - very disappointing.

Bingo!!! Also, something that most people don't know is that if you're towing more than 2000kg, then your trailer must be equipped with brakes on all 4 wheels, and must also have a break away system fitted (so that the trailer brakes automatically apply if the trailer becomes disconnected from the car). Very few car trailers have this unless it's specified as a 2500kg (or more) trailer. That's why you'll see the load rating on all car trailers as 2000kg TOTAL. I haven't read the wording lately, but I believe that the 2000kg refers to the total trailer mass + the load on the trailer - the downforce on the tow ball (normally about 100kg or so). Note I haven't double checked for a while, so that last bit may not be correct. Best to determine for youself before committing. The auto Falcons used to have a higher towing capacity than the manuals (in the days of the EL, anyway). Don't know if that's changed in recent times though. Many modern 4WD's have piddly clutches that aren't really up to the task of regular towing. In the name of making the 4WD's more user friendly for their intended purpose (soccer moms, etc.) they have lightened a lot of the controls by fitting more car-sized components. My PAthfinder will quickly smoke the clutch while towing if I'm not careful, although after 75,000km it is still going strong.

Me too. Could be a good basis for my project. Got any pics of the shell?

Dunno if this applies as much to modern slicks (I've never driven on them) but on road tyres and the old race tyres, the tyres achieved maximum grip with a slight amount of slip (about 7% was the magical figure IIRC). In other words, a very slight amoung of slip (understeer, oversteer, 4w drift, depending on the corner) was always faster than no slip at all. Anything more than this, and the grip levels fell away quite quickly (and obviously increased wear and tyre overheating) Even on gravel, the best drivers admit that straight is fastest. It's just so boring - that's why so many of us choose the (slower) RWD option in gravel rallying - we do it for the rock chucking goodness, not to win trophies.

I see you're on your P's, so a turbo is out. Here is a cheap, reliable 2 door Japanese car for you.

Correct. When I got T-boned (92 GTSt) the replacement door they sent me was from a Ser 1, without the intrusion bar. I asked the panel beater to swap the intrusion bar over, and he said it was a massive structure, weighed a tonne and was a huge job. We didn't weigh the gear, but it had a significant effect on door weight. The intrusion bar would likely have next to no effect on rigidity of the door in terms of sag etc, but the added weight would likely cause hinges to wear out quicker. Interestingly enough, when he spoke to the insurance company about whether they would cover the cost of this, their response was to notify them if my existing door didn't have the intrusion bar, as this meant they would cancel my insurance policy. If you had a decent cage with intrusion bars then that negates the need for the door bars, although every little bit helps, and even if the door slows your car (or the car hitting you) by 10km/h, then that could be the difference between life and death. I am considering removing the heavy intrusion bar, and fitting a lighter RHS bar in there - even if it only loses a couple of kg, but retains (or increases) the strength of the door, it can't be a bad thing BerserkR32 - if you could point me in the direction of one of these light weight alloy RB engines, I'd be grateful. Were they homologated?

Most important factor and I can't believe nobody has mentioned it - avoid using brakes unless absolutely necessary. On the surface it sounds silly, but when you think about it, by the time you apply the brakes, you've already used too much fuel to get up to the speed that you need to use brakes. If you modify your driving style and think ahead, it's surprising how little you need to use the brakes. this means you're using far less power to get up to speeds where you need to apply brakes. No, it doesn't mean driving everywhere at 20km/h, either. Also, if you think that knocking it into neutral to coast down hills is saving fuel, think again. Modern EFI systems shut off fuel altogether with 0 throttle and revs over a certain RPM (usually something llike 1800). If you coast in neutral, then the engine is being fed fuel just to keep it running, whereas if you're in gear, then the fuel system shuts down completely. Follow some of these techniques and you can save a reasonable a mount of fuel. Just because you want to drive a Skyline doesn't mean you have to drive it like a dickhead all the time

Edit: nah, not worth the hassle

Nah my OP was without crew or helmets or fuel. Tha CAMS regs state: The weight is the real weight of the car, without driver nor co-driver nor their equipment; this includes the helmet, but the headphones external to the helmet may be left in the car. At no time during the event may a car weigh less than the minimum weight stated in this article ie min weight does NOT include driver, helmets etc. External headsets may be left in the car for this weight measurement, but as the car must always exceed this weight, then it has to be measured with no fuel, or at least the minimum fuel load you are ever going to run. Total weight of co-driver and driver is less than 145kg, so not a significant amount to add into the car to upset balance. Having said all that, looks like we'll struggle to get the dressed weight anywhere near the class minimum (1180kg), given the reinfoecement and heavy duty gear we'll need to be running (light weight suspension components don't fill me with confidence if the car will be spending time with all 4 wheels off the ground) Next weight category (sub 1260) will let us run up up to 2.35L. Looks like the best option is to use the RB26 crank with max allowable overbore (1.5mm) to give 2.2L. Probably big $$ for a 10% capacity increase. But I'm getting way ahead of myself now

is there a problem with the inverter machines? Just curious (I only have a cheapy DC TIG - no good for alloy - and I use it from time to time when my stick welding letm me down) Nice work there, too. Like you say, welding is not something you can just pick up and retain without doing a lot of it (and knowing what settings to use in different conditions). You need to practice, practice, practicce. SOmething that frustrates the hell of casual welders such as myself.

Can you elaborate on that? 2WD PRC cars don't need to run a turbo restrictor (clearly stated in CAMS manual) - if that's what you're getting at. I wouldn't entertain an RB25DE, as if I were going N/A route I'd be better off with a C110/C210 (or early Zed) with L28. With the knowledge base out there, a worked L28 will be better bang for bucks than RB25DE. Besides, a turbo engine makes such effortless, reliable torque, which is exactly what you want on the gravel. Yeh, suspension travel might be an issue, but control arms are free, so might be able to custom fab longer arms for more travel - will have to have a good look at it. I understand that there are some 15" rims that will fit over GTSt brakes, but not a hope in getting any to fit R33 or GTR brakes. That will probably be the buggest restriction. I have never needed massive brakes on a gravel car before - they are nowhere near as hard as brakes as a tarmac car, so I believe stock brakes will hold up well with decent pads and fluid (and some cooling ducts if necessary). Besides, I don't drive fast enough to need big brakes anyway My nav and I have lost a combined 30kg over the last couple of years, so there's a big weight saving already. The car weight is measured without a crew or helmets, and without fuel because the car can not weigh less than the minimum weight at any stage of the event.

Thanks DJDrift - good info again. Yeh I've just been having the same discussion on suspension components (I gather it's the same brands you mention, as one was 1`/3rd the weight of the other, and I know that the "heavy" one is definitely very highly regarded. I know the weight of the engine is pretty hard to control - and yes it's a heavy lump. Ideally, an SR20 Silvia is probably a more sensible choice (has already been homologated, and there are already a few running) but from what I am seeing, they will become very common, and I prefer to do something different. Will definitely be tagging the cage to the shell wherever possible. That's pretty standard in my experience.

That's exactly the sort of info I was after - thanks Sav Man. Yup - long stages, high power, low speed, harsh roads - it will be copping a pounding unlike any R32 has probably experienced before Won't be needing big brakes (in fact, I don't think I can fit anything bigger than standard under the wheels anyway). We are allowed to run the cage into the boot and engine bay, so no problems there. Definitely don't like the throught of removing stiffening braces, but will look at all parts and determine what is load bearing and what isn't (not too difficult if you have some idea of engineering principles) Our weight limits are based on engine capacity. Stock RB20DET means I can go as light as 1180kg according to the regs, but that doesn't sound very achievable within our regs. The next category takes you up to 1260kg, which sounds about right. If I can't get the car below 1260 then I can look at boring / stroking to 2.2L if that will gain me any significant benefits (chasing fat torque curve, not useless dyno queen). All just part of my research at this stage before I embark on the project. HAve some serious red tape to cut through first, so might not even get off the ground until that can be sorted. Thanks for the help again.

Thanks for the feedback. I can't afford to sacrifice the strength of too many components, and cooling system will defenitely need to be up to scratch. I have generally found that a caged, prepped car weighs close to the factory weight of the standard vehicle (by the time you add in other stuff that I'll be needing) Not sure whether regs will let me run the GTR bonnet yet.

Just wondering if anyone has managed to get a caged, tarmac rally or circuit / drift R32 GTS-t under 1200kg, or whether it's even possible? It would have to have all panels in place (ie no drift specials with bumpers missing etc) and 2 seats, complete dash still fitted. Not talking about exotic Cr Mo cages either but something fairly substantial. Also not allowed to use titanium and carbon components - all panels must remain steel where fitted, and carbon not allowed Would this be possible without costing $1M, or just a pipe dream?

Yes, because they're both aimed at the same market