zoomzoom

Unless you get a stock turbo for almost free, I don't think its worth taking the risk on a old stock turbo. You may consider having one rebuilt by a turbo workshop like hypergear. They have a "R33 standard profile high flow" which has much better flow through the higher rev range, but more lag. It will produce boost from 2.8 - 3k rpm. You can ask to see if they can do a version with characteristics closer to stock. With all the effort it takes to strip down the area and take off the turbo, it is wise to do a thorough job once over while you are there. Ie, rebuilt turbo, change manifold studs and gaskets, inspect for cracked metal etc. I did all of that for less than $1200. I used the standard profile high flow from hypergear, though if I were to do it again, I would probably see if they could do a version closer to stock.

Though interestingly there doesn't appear to be much reported difference in fuel consumption between manuals and autos. Also, they are still comparable to most modern vehicles, even when factoring their age. For country highway driving, I used to get a consistent 9.8L/100km in a 2010ish ford falcon, recently Ive measured 9.6L/100km on the same run in a VE commodore wagon, and thats the small V6. I can get sub 12L/100km on the same run in the stagea, which is 17 years older and has 4WD. The trick I find is to use the turbo and not feel guilty about it

My stagea has some stickers on the vehicle added by whoever imported/complied the vehicle. It states to use 95-96 RON fuel. I wouldn't automatically treat it as an authoritative source. Its oil change interval is stated to be 5000km, whereas the nissan manual states 10,000km. Ive always run more boost than stock, so I just used 98 as a default since I dont particularly wish to go searching for limits.... Due to boost control issues, Ive had a few major overboosts. Luckily no damage that I know of ever occured. Did high octane fuel save my behind in that case? Can't say, but it helps your chances.

The GTO was a sexy car. Always wanted one.

Apart from the tiptronic ability, a shift kit really livens the box up...if you dont mind the hektic 1st to 2nd gear slam. All other gear shifts are very quick and often less noticeable than stock.

Driving uphill, or corners really necessitates manual control over the box. I drive a selection of modern cars too, like camrys, i45s, commodores, cruzes, DSG focuses.....none of them have satisfactory shift logic for corners, or even uphill. The worst one ever was the holden epica. The ratios were awful, and the shifts were hilariously laggy. What a shit car. Anyhow, I can still get plenty of control with the S1 auto box.

Its not just the surface quality, ideally you'll want to check to see if the rotor has warped slightly.

I don't think a manual is much more economical. Not from anecdotes around here anyways. The problem is comparing cars in an equal state of tune and maintenance, and the only difference is the transmission. Very hard to make that comparison. The cost of a conversion will take many years to pay off, thats of course assuming you even make a difference to economy. The best tip is to work with the transmission, keeping the converter clutch locked as much as possible. In an series 1 that means using the overdrive switch, you'll have to judge how the tiptronic is working. Since you have a series 2, its easier for you to tune at a reasonable price.

It has more than a whiff of the emperor's new clothes about it.

Depends of what advantage there would be for doing that. I wouldn't have any desire to buy a car as a museum piece though, no matter how rare. With cash to burn Id like to modernise a V12 Lamborghini grand tourer. For example, get rid of those carbs that like to shoot fuel onto the hot exhausts.

Dont understand keeping it stock to be quite honest. We're talking about cars in the 15-25 year old range, and multiple areas of technology have seen improvements. We have access to better fuel, and better engine management technology, better suspension components, not to mention common flaws being identified in similar cars, engines and transmissions. I rebuilt the suspension, slapped on a new turbo, shift kit and made some creature comfort mods to the interior. It has given the car a new lease on life and in that sense it has saved me money. No need to buy a new car now unless something major happens.

New? Second hand? Did you replace the exhaust gaskets when you swapped the turbo?

I left my car parked on a slope to the left once when the tank was low but not what Id call "empty" low. The damn thing wouldn't start till I rolled it onto flat ground. I think the fuel pump would be living on the edge (or slowly heating itself to death).

For example Im finding that when I fill up my "empty" tank, there is still consistently ~15 litres left, if the tank is 68 litres. Big margin for error.

Fill up the tank till the pump clicks, reset trip meter, drive until most of the tank is gone, then refill. Take note of the distance and the litres consumed. The fuel gauge is useless for calculating economy. Fuel tank is 68 litres, but youll never get close to emptying it. Nor should you since the pump can get uncovered leaving you with a car that wont start.

I used boat grease to lubricate the sway bar mounts as best as I could. With the bar disconnected from either wheel, you can move it back and forth allowing you to work some grease in. Boat grease is sticky and is good for exposed areas. Mind you, grease isn't good for rubber, but on old components I don't think it really matters anyways. Having a silent car is much more of a concern to me.

Could be many things. If the coilovers were removed, check whether there is a gasket between the strut mount and the body of the vehicle. Check the sway bar which can make some awful noises if it isn't lubricated.

Its possible, though I can't think why. The box runs a slightly higher line pressure, so if anything there should be more energy lost through the transmission. Perhaps not enough to make a difference on economy. MV autos said it shouldn't make a difference. The larger turbo should be less restrictive and doesn't spool up at the whiff of a throttle. It now stays off boost unless Im giving some throttle over 3k rpm. That should be more efficient with the stock ecu. Still, everyones results may vary. I read a post once saying that the stage 2 kit would effect the lock up converter, and I havent found that to be the case at all. Can't see how it would be either.

Check the connections at the back of the climate control unit. I left it slightly unplugged once and a similar noise was the result.

S1 RS4V - does around 12.5-13L/100km "round town" ie Canberra roads. Country highway is 11-12L/100km, freeway is on the lower end of that. Fuel economy improved ~1L/100km when I installed a hypergear hi flow turbo and a mv auto stage 2 shift kit. Can't say scientifically which did what improvement, but my money would be on the turbo.

You need a cylindrical object large enough to press onto the metal casing of the bush, but small enough to fit through the actual arm. You also need to support the arm on the press just on the edges so the casing can be pushed through. The superpro bush is a bit difficult to get in, the best way I have found is to use threaded rod to pull the bush through the hole in the arm. A 6 ton press was more than sufficient for this bush. Or you could use adjustable arms to set the castor right when you get a wheel alignment. It will probably be uneven.

The more expensive units are hand held readers which display codes on an LCD screen, the other cables are just an interface between the car and a laptop. Years ago I purchased the ECUtalk cable, which is still around $100, nowadays there are lots of cheap ones available from china (Im sure the ecutalk one is chinese too...) The ECUtalk has a site, with links to the chip manufacturers site where they list USB drivers for various operating systems. I have no info on whether the cheaper ones will have the same support, if any at all. http://www.ecutalk.com/interface.aspx http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

That's an understatement. In these kinds of threads, its not uncommon to see claims of >25L/100kms based on the "x kms to a tank" lingo. Which is around the consumption of turbo bentleys, v12 lambos and ferraris.

From memory, logging the timing using a consult cable is also a way of seeing if the ecu is trying to regulate too much air entering the engine at idle. If you see the timing fluctuating that may be a problem. Ill have to dig out my old ecu logs.

900 sounds too high. Have you tried cleaning the AAC valve? That in itself wont set the idle but there is a screw on there which may be letting in too much air at idle. That screw can be adjusted to bring down the revs. Cant remember the exact idle speed off the top of my head, but I believe the auto idle is slightly higher. 700-750 is what mine is around.