JayTay

Nah not you mate, i meant SilverS2, info on his setup would probably help both of us, though if you put 9.5's on with no suspension work your car will look like shit. +22 on a 9.5 will clear the coilovers at the front from what ive stuck in the calculators, but will have some serious poke without camber, lowness, roll/flare and most likely 225's. Should be sweet at the rear with just a rolled guard. I think it works out to be pretty close to a 10" wide +18 in terms of fitment. If anyone knows the final word on inner clearance it would be awesome if you could post it up, pictures would be good as well. cheers, Jess

Can anyone give a definitive answer on inner clearance on a 33 gts-t, with 18x9.5 +30 with a 235 tyre? Have read the r34 gtr wheels are a bit close as is and these will sit 6mm further in. Would just go the 18x9.5 +22, but am trying not to go nuts with poke. cheers, Jess Edit: apologies, just saw above, how low is your car? will it scrub the inner if you dropped further?

You're kind of asking several different questions, which aren't particularly related to one another. As far as painting goes, you really have two options, the DIY approach, or the sell a kidney and a lung to pay for what you want approach. Being a person who has nearly finished painting his bloody skyline, I can assure you that it is not an endeavour to be undertaken lightly. Painting is one of those things that a lot of people see in a "how hard could it be?" light. Believe me, these guys earn the amounts of money they charge for good jobs. The amount of masking, taping, sanding, priming etc. that goes into even a half alright job is huge, and probably far beyond the patience levels of the average punter. (It sure as hell tested mine) That being said, it is not the most difficult thing to get a halfway decent finish, it's just really time consuming, and this number of hours is where the money that spray painters and panel beaters really comes from. When you add up the hours it takes, you realise these guys arent the dodgy overcharging conmen, some would make them out to be. If you want to do the paint job yourself, (and it sounds as though you want to paint the bonnet yourself to discover some previously unkown talent you had, thereby allowing you to do the rest of your car) my advice would be to do a lot more research, as the questions you are asking sound as though you have not done near enough to consider actually trying it yourself. You need to decide if you want to do a 2k or acrylic lacquer respray. This will be the determining factor on if you can do it yourself or not. For the type of paint job you are talking about, (holo flake etc.) you are probably talking about a 2k finish, which you cannot do at home due to the hideous carcinogenic chemicals in the paint, which can cause serious permanent damage to your nervous system from ANY amount of contact through your lungs, eyes, skin etc. Acrylic finishes are better suited to simpler DIY paint jobs, as they can be done at home with just a P2 rated respirator and gloves, though they are not as robust as 2k finishes, and require considerably more sanding and finishing. This is why the painting industry no longer uses them. If after all that you do decide to continue and try at home, (there are pearlizing agents you can use with acrylic btw) The cost of purchasing equipment is a consideration. For a decent belt driven compressor capable of flowing enough air and an alright gun and lines, connectors etc. you need to budget at least $700-$800 for an entry level setup. The gloss of your clear will depend on a number of factors, but mainly the quality of the paint job, whether or not it is a 2k job,(acrylic requires more maintenance and buffing) the quality of paint that the painter uses. Doing a million clear coats will not necessarily give you a better result. Remember, with paint, if a job seems heaps cheaper than the others, theres a reason for it, conversely going for the most outrageous quote wont always deliver a good job. I would suggest that you probably need to go and get some quotes from panel shops about having this work done. Personally, if the paint on your car is in decent shape, I would question the logic in dumping probably the best part of 5 grand into a 10 grand car in good condition. (and saying this the white skylines seem to age way better than other colours) Another consideration is that if you want to sell the car at some point, this money will be instantly lost, and may make the car harder to sell, as such a personal choice of colour may scare many off. Also take into account the prohibitively expensive cost of repairs to this kind of finish, it might look a million bucks when it's first done, but wait until it gets some scratches and dings, which WILL happen if you plan on driving it anywhere, and you will soon be tearing out your hair with the need for touchups. The only reason i have attepted a respray on my own car, is the clearcoat was peeling terribly, and the paint was in terrible condition, not wanting to shell out loads for a proper respray I gave it a crack myself to learn some things, aquire some tools; which are tax deductible for tradies and end up with a finish that is acceptable for a daily driver that can be repaired relatively easily. It's a massive consideration and undertaking, but when you have polished the roof to a perfect flat glossy colour and can see yourself smiling with satisfaction, it's all worth it. GL with either way you choose to go. Jess.

As an interesting point, I bought a pair of S2 headlights recently, and they have a single light for both high and low beam as well as built in indicators and parkers. All factory mind you, apparently they're quite rare. The globes are marked : H4U 12Volt 60/55W They are def. dual filament globes.

Yeah was expecting a flare to be necessary, ive seen rolled 18x10 +20/+18 and thats a bees dick to scrubtown, maybe should buy a set of 9 inch with +25 or so then buy two ridiculous rears to attempt when i finally nut up! Yours looks pretty flush alex, is it rolled or mild flare?

Man, whether or not 18s are small by today's standards, I'd still rather some good looking 17s or 18s with dish, width and offset than some Chromed out trash with cash 22s. Looks good Birds, got any photos of the rear? I'm looking at some 9 inch wide rears with a +25 offset, but fear it may be a bit weak for what i like. May have to go 10.5 inch wide with +20 BTW if anyone has any pics of an R33 with such a width and offset, 17 or 18 inch is fine, though 17 is preferable, I would greatly appreciate if you could post. cheers!

The whole idea of the "hoon"/"street racer" is an interesting concept, people seem to have very different ideas and preconceptions about what that means, be it as a result of personal experience or biased second hand reporting through tabloid quality current affairs (not a shot at Hack by the way, a great current affairs programme, despite it somewhat pandering to lowest common denominator interviewing techniques and editing at times this week). I think many of us, being enthusiasts, who waste countless hours on forums about our cars, don't appreciate dickheads (in place of the word "hoons"; a misused colloquialism) ruining our experience with modified/sports cars, by bringing increased attention from the police, and negative press from conservative media. This attention that is routinely slavished upon us by the pompous, scowling, self appointed critics of society, serves as nothing but a filler between tabloid stories of celebrity scandal, and working class triumph. A distraction that allows 7 or so minutes of dinner table, high-horse soapboxing. How can/How do we defeat these notions? Well, in part, we play their game. We dont put the loudest cannons money can buy on our cars, we plumb back our screamers, we leave 100 mm of clearance! (dont touch your offset though, EVERYONE loves a hellaflush look) If we ourselves dont seek out the attention, we differentiate ourselves, as true enthusiasts, from the knuckle dragging mouth-breathers who can't wait to tell everyone about how they'd rather stick 60K into a car than a house. (btw. what a fucking loser, hope life is great living with your parents at 30 bro) PS. Mischief DVDs are ghey. Getaway in Stockholm and Ghostrider rule.

By the way, is that "about my cube" line in the original episode? I swear ive never seen that one line in the episode before. Bravo. Bravo.

My apologies for not calling you...... I'm just hella too busy with my indie band. But yeah, any money the song you're talking about is angus and julia stone. They're shit. But not as much as you. Oh yeah.... Racetracks are viewed as deathtraps by the powers that be I'm sure, the public liability would be a nightmare. Unfortunately i think we're always going to be short on venues for racing. People improvising their own racecourses, while it may be stupid/fun/gay will always happen in response to a lack of proper venues. Why the hell else would this drift and touge crap be so cool?

This is true, it's easier to get power out of large displacement engines, but we're also talking about a boatload more power than the old "caveman" V8's, ie. 308/350 302/351. If only Ford and Holden did a "quality control" model XR6T/SS, that cost 10K more, but didnt have shitful appointments (rubbish leather for the main one) and finishing. Make an XR6T motor happy to rev to 7500 or so, than bang it in a skyline and you could have some serious fun. So uh yeah, put a highflow and supporting mods on your R34! (apologies for off topic)

You're such a sponge if you listen to that shitful traitor Scott Dooley on Nova Rowan.......

Are you kidding? You think your cast iron block skyline motor is "far more advanced" than Ford's quad cam V8? How about Holden's allegedly power dropping 6 Litre V8 that only needs some breathing mods to run into the 12s NA? Not to mention that rubbish turbo straight six Ford motor, that is only a couple of pounds of boost away from 300rwkw? These are not carbie'd 253s out of a kingswood. Try checking how much an LS2 puts out on a dyno stock. That crap about losing more power than a skyline engine is exactly that. Don't claim it to be a fact. Dazza and Muzza have the technology now compared to R32/33/34. Saying all that a skyzer around 200rwkw+ should give most *STOCK* Aussie muscle a damn good run; and thats probably a cheap and cheerful place to be.

You know how at school discos the Grease megamix always takes a hammering? Do you reckon they'll come up with a Fast and Furious megamix for our kids? *WATCH YOUR BACK, WATCH YOUR BACK, WATCH YOUR WATCH YOUR WATCH YOUR BACK* that'd be siiiiiiiick

I have a feeling the comment was a gee up, hence why it was a direct copy of my fun police warning. 235's on a 10" arent the end of the world, for the most part 235's have SFA stretch on a 9" so on a 10 should look toasty. Legalities aside that is.

That fitment is awesome, does it scrub it's balls off at the front? Respect for having the knackers to go with some decent fitment and not make your 33 look like some limp wristed, sunken wheeled, wally-mobile. Watch out for the fun police too! They'll be along soon to tell you it's impractical/your tyres are too thin for a 10 inch wide rim.

Not to be an arse or anything but it's "moot" point not "mute". Implying irrelevent given circumstances, not unable to be heard. And seriously, If you are powerful/wise enough to get this guy out of paying a measly 7 grand and learning an important life lesson for stupidity, please put your talents to some positive use. Anyone who can beat insurance companies at their own game should be curing AIDS/Cancer with their clearly superior intellect! Not a dig at you at all MSTRshenan., just hate people like this P plater example who take risks in cars, then carry on like spoilt brat toddlers when they come unstuck.

Just in case it's not a pisstake..... How about manning the fark up and taking some responsibility? Going from your username you're an adult. So behave like an adult. Take the hit that you deserve for stupidity. Here's an idea, take out a loan for 8G, pay the insurance company the money they will recover from you one way or the other, buy a pushbike and gain some understanding for how shite it is when people in cars behave like knobs. After this you should be cured of your stupidity, and know exactly when, where and how to have fun in a car.

Do you have any vids up on youtube or anything? would really like to hear this at some point. twin turbo V8 above 6krpm = win in every direction

And boy am I sorry for doing it. I'm just a nerd, who has learnt a lot from it and wanted to contribute something. (read as: shout opinions in a consequence free environment) Thank god for forums ey?

Good call on the low comp. Sort the motor before messing with plenums. Besides that, i dunno why you'd go to the trouble of welding it up for poor flow etc. when a greddy knockoff plus a little bit of work will only set you back a few hundred bucks.

My goodness. That car is Boner. Pure Boner. Funny you mention the R31 is replacing an XR6T. The dyno graph looks eerily similar to a lot of the graphs you see for modded XR6T's running BPU's. Scarily yours is running about the same boost as a stock one, and is in a car that's around 400 kilos lighter at Full interior weight. Mad props yo. Jesse

Also just found this while looking further into rotaries and calculations applied. Pretty much bang on with what I'm saying, but has pretty pictures i lack the skill or inclination to create. http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html PLUS it's a rotary site, so I'm sure all the rotor fanboys (not directed at you birds) will shrink faster than doodles in the antarctic. Note the part where they admit the six faces each with a displacement of 40ci (654cc) do equal 3.9L or 240ci through a complete thermodynamic (combustion) cycle. This is what I'm saying. A rotary displaces 3.9 litres through a combustion cycle. It is comparable to a 2.6 litre 4 stroke inefficiencies notwithstanding. On a side not I came across this while looking into the firing order of the rotors relative to one another and it states that the rotors are 180 degrees offset from one another in the twin rotor 13b. Interestingly, through application of the flawed logic that you can only count the area where combustion is occuring at in the motor, a 13b is actually a 654cc motor as only one combustion chamber exists at any one time.

Fair call on the unintelligent comment, it was a dick move on my part and contributes nothing to the discussion. I was hungover and grumpy yesterday. If I can address the points you are making in that last post? This is good, in terms of capacity with respect to racing we are in agreement on this point, I understand you disagree with my displacement theory, and yes, it's just a theory and not indisputable proof. If you disagree I ask you to come up with an alternative method to arrive at the 2.6 figure so widely agreed on as being equal to a 13b twin rotor engine. It must be mathematically and logically sound. Cool, so we both agree they have inherent inefficiencies. When this is applied to motor racing it is what has caused arganisations to increase capacity penalties against equivalent 4 stroke motors from 2.6 anywhere down to 2.1. This is where I think we are reaching the standoff. For starters, no-one from the general public, and even very few car nuts would tolerate a two stroke car engine. Regular rebuilds and a lack of reliability, coupled with high emissions and the need to mix your own fuel would be enough coffin nails to keep it down for good. As best as I can see, your argument is that a rotary only takes 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle. I have read your posts closely as I do want to understand what your opinion is based on. I think this seems to be it. If I am wrong in this assumption please let me know, as obviously you would know what you're thinking better than i do. If this is the case of taking 360 degrees to complete a combustion cycle, then when assessing relative capacity for equivalence to 4 stroke engines in competition it would pit a 13b against a 654cc 4 stroke. And that would just be silly. By the same argument it would pit it against a 327cc two stroke. Silly again. To continue this comparison, without allowing for inefficency penalties (ie 2.6 litre 4 stroke vs 13b rotary) what displacement class for a 2 stroke would you apply for rotary equivalence? I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar you'd say 1.3 litres. The idea of deceptive power from a relatively low displacement is true, however cannot be applied to rotary engines without admitting they are a two stroke design, which, coincidentally would be the only other mathematically sound way i could see to reach an equivalent capacity figure of 2.6 litres for competition with four strokes. I think at this stage we all know that rotary engines aren't a two stroke piston engine. Despite sharing a great deal of similarities, they are something else entirely. I think this has been one of your major arguments for comparison. As for the RS250, couldn't agree more, would love one of those stinky little chainsaws to thrash around. So yeah, really interested to hear your reply, as I think we're actually starting to understand how each other is thinking about this. Apologies for any non productive slurs that (with apologies to SK) "muddy" the topic. Cheers, Jesse

Hey birds, re-read through a few of your posts and came across this gem on the last page: No misqouting, no out of context, just read what you have written and apply it to what i said about the classes that rotary engined cars are placed in for motorsports competition, and the way in which this figure is arrived at. When you look at the relative classes for rotary engined vehicles there is no way that any of the major motorsports bodies agree that a Rotary engine is classed as being in any way comparable to a 1.3 litre piston engine, couple this with the knowledge that rotaries have inherent inefficiencies when compared to piston engines it becomes clear as day that the displacement COULD NOT be 1.3 litres. If by some miracle the design of a rotary allowed the engine to be twice as efficient as its piston counterparts, then yes. I would absolutely concede that the displacement of a rotary is 1.3 based on the equivalent displacement class of 2.6 for piston engines. Everyone knows this is not the case though. If it was, every car maker on earth would adopt a rotary engine as standard and pistons would be completely obsolete. You know this. Furthermore proof you will discount by not addressing in your weak retorts: Taken directly from the ATO website: Rates per business kilometre Engine capacity Cents per kilometre Ordinary car Rotary engine car 1600cc (1.6 litre) 800cc (.8 Litre) 63 or less or less 1601cc - 2600cc 801cc - 1300cc 74 (1.601 litre - 2.6 litre) (0.801 litre - 1.3 litre) 2601cc (2.601 litre) 1301cc (1.301 litre) 75 and over and over Link: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content....mp;st=&cy=1 Interestingly, when the government assess the relative capacity of a rotary engine to a piston engine they apply THE EXACT SAME THEORY as CAMS, FIA etc. The very same one I wrote down in the plainest terms possible so you might have a hope of understanding it. When you want to argue back again address this point as I just addressed one of your major earlier ones as you asked me to, and oh hey, handed it right back to you with a creamy dollop of logic sauce. I thought when I started replying to this thread you were relatively intelligent, but I'm starting to seriously question that. Here's one last question for you, as you seem to love ridiculous hypotheticals. If HYPOTHETICALLY the rotor was static and the housings maintained the elliptical rotation around it would you finally feel more comfortable about admitting the true displacement? Dont just address this last point either, your subjective selection of facts is getting tiresome and desperate.

GT-R32 - the RPM crack was a gee up, pure and simple. Birds - I think you're making a rotary to be a far more complicated thing than it is, an internal combustion engine. You say that you have to counter my argument about using piston engine terminology because I used it first. Not really the greatest way to debate a point. The fact is it works on the same principles as a piston engine. Of course it's not the same type of engine, no-one ever suggested that. The principles are however the same. I know that you understand how engines work, I also know that a number of pages ago you admitted to being completely unable to let go of a point once you start arguing it. There are many things in scienctific fields that while not identical, have enough similarity that an equivalence of operation or structure can be drawn. Rotary vs. Piston is not apples compared to granite. The points of a cycle in a rotary can be correspondingly mapped to a piston engine's cycle of operation. If you disagree with this, you disagree with how any engine operates. When you map the points corresponding to one another the twin rotary mimics the operation of a six cylinder engine. (did not use the word two stroke) Six ignition events in a twin rotor after a COMPLETE cycle - six ignition events in a 6 cylinder after a COMPLETE cycle. I do hope you don't disagree with this, because if you do, I will know for sure you are taking the p!ss and trying to throw rocks at the hive for giggles. I think that's what Jez13 is doing. If you do disagree...... well, I offer this. CAMS, FIA, and any other motor racing bodies you could car to name, who have promoted a handicapping system for rotary competition, almost certainly agree that the displacement of a 13b rotary is 3.9 litres. The only way, mathematically and logically, to approach a figure of between 1.6 and 2 times the specified manufacturer capacity of a rotary (for a 13b - ~2.1-2.6 Litres) is as follows. **PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY AND THINK ABOUT IT, IT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE.** 1. One complete cycle of a 13b, yields six ignition events. each one of these events occurs in a combustion chamber with a displacement of 654cc. So in one full cycle the motor DISPLACES 3.9 litres of capacity. Please consider the word DISPLACES carefully. 2. A Rotary engine MUST go through 1080 degrees to complete ONE full combustion cycle, with the specific face at inlet returned to the exact same point within 3 dimensions after this 1080 degree rotation/cycle. (Please dont argue the semantics of the words i have chosen, ie. rotation/cycle, i know how then engine works and you know what i mean.) 3. In motor racing, a comparable two stroke motor when pitched against a four stroke motor will have half the capacity of the four stroke. This is evident in MotoGP, probably the only motorsport series any of us could name that had the two different styles of engine in direct competition with one another. 4. To compare a four stroke, to what many would refer to as a six stroke, (this is the rotary, this acknowledges the 1080 degrees of rotation to complete a FULL cycle) the ratio for comparison is no longer a doubling as the stroke count increases, but an increase of 4 : 6 or to simplify 2:3. Now, let's put what we all seem to agree on together. When a full cycle of a 13b rotor engine occurs, displacing 3.9 Litres over a complete cycle, which in itself, encompasses 1080 degrees of rotation to complete, which, is at a ratio of 3:2 when compared to a 4 stroke piston engines rotation completing a full combustion cycle, we apply the ratio of 2:3 to the figure of 3.9, which can be accomplished by multiplying by .66 recurring, or dividing by the inverse of the ratio 1.5. Drum roll, what do we have here? That's right 2.6 Litres. It is indisputable that rotaries have inherent inefficiencies, it is largely agreed that these encouraged motor racing bodies to adopt a capacity penalty of anywhere up to 20% to competing four stroke engines. Adjust for this? 2.08 Litres So there it is. Mathematically and logically you cannot reach the figures any other way. I don't KNOW that this is why motor racing bodies reached the conclusion over relative classes for rotary engined vehicles, but I would be willing to bet the house on it. As it is the only logical possibility. I am asking that those who wish to continue to argue the displacement of a rotary engine over one complete combustion cycle please read this carefully and dismiss it out of hand because you have reached a different conclusion to me. I have offered you the same courtesy by reading the entire thread last night and being grumpy at work today. To misquote Fight Club "Listen, don't just wait for your turn to speak". If you still wanna argue displacement after that frigging rant i just did, try these topics on for size: The sky is not blue (blue is relative to my perception of it) Evolution and fossil records are false (God put them there to test our faith/The scientists lied because it would put them out of a job) etc. I think that's about it, hopefully for good, but most likely for now. Going to go and hit my head against a wall for an hour or two. Peace. Jesse.