Kinkstaah

Is the no aircon dependent on the pulley for the charger? Or just because its a pain in the ass and not required. From what I read about the Capa kits they dont mention losing aircon for the commodores, so I assume their solution continues keeping stock AC... One of the things I got heavily recommended was the Crow solid tensioner kit, to avoid throwing belts when you back off throttle at high RPM, instead of the spring loaded one. Something to look into before it becomes a problem for dorifto!

Any idea which one you ended up going with? I've had that page open for several years, figured there would be some compromise (I need AC, psteer, street legality lol) I'm making the assumption you've got enough skills to put a LS in, adapting an intercooler kit to fit it would be no worries (at that point) Oh well, enjoy the road less travelled (relative to me!)

There is nothing new under the sun. Build threads have a fair bit of activity for general "This is my plan/this is what I am doing" sort of things. Gonna have to ask you - Is that the CAPA charger kit? Asking for a friend. A friend is me, who has a LS in a R34 and figured it 'should' fit. Clearly does.

Sorry no - It's been sold, I didn't close the thread off due to bumping it from oblivion seemed un-necessary. It has gone to a new home, namely a madman who is putting a E60 V10 into a R33.

The rear ratio for AT is 4.08 vs 4.111 in Manual. This is utterly un-noticable. (about 1kmh per gear shorter/longer). Do you really have a R34 GTT standard? If any of the setup is to suit a N/A in the rear end, you'll have different axles to suit. If it isn't that - For some reason Nismo have two different part numbers for the R34, one for series 1 (98-2000) and one for series 2 (2000-2001) The one you posted is series2. I am not sure what the differences actually are (or if it is even relevant.) But it is a different part number.

I was worried about it too, I didn't want it to feel like it was some kind of FULL RACE CAR STUPIDNESS when I was going out to get milk. But even at its most severe, it really wasn't. If anything it felt more 'positive' and wasn't too extreme. Fully manualizing it is the most cost effective option, if you can get clutch packs and having the thing lock for fuel economy (lol) that's probably the most important thing to do. If you're using a Nistune, you probably won't need the ECU, the OEM programming of the thing was actually close to what the TCM had programmed into it. If I had've read the wiring diagram to begin with instead of trusting the mechanics before DTM.. I would have got the Nistune actually working with the GTT ECU in the GT N/A car and never needed Haltechs and the PCS 😛

Mine was the B, the B is what is in the R34 GTT. I'm not 100% certain what the A is actually in. I've read the "A" is the non triptronic version, but I've also read the "A" version is also triptronic in the non turbo auto skylines. They have a triptronic auto but it is not the same internally. I sent a melted/destroyed to hell MV built auto which was originally the GT Non Turbo auto to DTM. I also sent a stock GTT auto to DTM and asked them to build it. They said the Turbo one was substantially different to the N/A variant, so not a fault of MV that it melted itself, it just had a lot less of a base to work with. There was also the option of fully manualizing it, which is simpler, and cheaper, and more direct - However I quite liked the idea of the steering wheel buttons working, and the ability to "Just put it in D" with a lazy, smooth mode, then an extremely aggressive mode in "Manual" mode with the wheel buttons. The latter setup requires the TCU to drive it - When they said it was doable I pulled the trigger on doing it that way, and retained the stock shifter, shifter buttons, etc which was nice. (none of this is better than being manual, though, if it's an option, do it) The shifts with the max line pressure the modified body could provide weren't actually that savage, more of a little firm bump than being kicked around etc. It took the power and lasted ages (and I sold it in the end, as a kit!) but keep in mind the total cost was in the 5-10k region all up, in a roll in, "hmmm how are we gonna do this", and drive out scenario. As always, decide what you want to do with the car, honestly before doing anything. The stock ECU running the gearbox actually does a pretty decent job in regard to requesting line pressure in a R34. The benefit of aftermaket control was/is a) Using a standalone ecu, you could consider changing your engine to run Nistune etc. b) The ability to shift less harsh than the OEM ECU would shift for you once you massively uprate the physical gearbox capacities.

The kit that I used specifically only mentioned the A too, but the B was no issue. Maybe contact DTM in Geelong (they're closer than MV) and they may be able to assist/recommend something.

Yeah I could not find ANYTHING, at ALL for the RE401B on anything, at all. It wasn't listed for the TCM PCS range either, but it didn't need a lot of smarts, and the TCU that we got was a universal, truly standalone one. In the end it just wanted speedo, tach, and the inputs on when to change gears (pretty much). You could set up the auto shifting and setup a full manual mode. You could change line pressures and such if you really wanted to, but it was hooked up with pretty much max pressure all the time. It had full control of the box and you could configure things like shift lockouts. However you did have to blip the throttle when shifting down - going from 2nd to 1st at 60+kmh would lock up the rears if you didn't blip it. Mine was originally installed by DTM Autos in Geelong - I only really got my hands dirty with it when we re-shelled the car, and I had a GTT to work with instead of the original GT N/A car, so all the wiring for the TCU had to be worked out again! That said, it was a lot simpler than we thought, and we had it going in a couple of hours actually, with just a friend and me on the nature strip of all places.

I used a TCM PCS 2000, which has since been superseded by other TCU's that that company makes. Honestly the gearbox itself (in R34 GTT form) has something like... 8? Wires going to it. It was remarkably not-that-complicated once you have it all out infront of you and a fair understanding of what wire goes where (i.e have the service manual handy). More modern engine ECU's can also control an automatic gearbox. These would actually be my pick because you can then have the engine ECU know about shifting and perform additional functions. I don't know off the top of my head which ECU's manage a motor AND an additional auto gearbox but I would wager the higher end known options do (i.e haltech, link etc)

This is just a really good example of how you don't necessarily need a billion hp on the internet to have fun with a car on road and track. See also: Noone really minds if someone is 2s slower because they don't quite have a billion hp, but you will also find that replacing a 330 engine is faster, easier, and much less frequent than old mate on insta with a billion hp.

Even if you do that, still bad ratios! (I have no idea what people were thinking here)

I have a R34, and I did a manual conversion on it, with a R33 GTST Gearbox. You just need the front half of the tailshaft to suit the gearbox you are putting in. But also as above, you may be surprised how cheap a custom driveshaft is. I've since put a LS into the car and needed 2! driveshafts made up (because I changed the gearbox... yet again) and it's been surprisingly little fuss on the driveshaft front. Don't use a TR6060 though. Bad ratios.

The actuator (and Dose's idea of putting the boost reference post-intercooler) can achieve similar things. Its worth noting that with a stronger spring, you may end up with say, 17psi at the end, but your likely peak will be 19-20 psi. You'll still get the dropoff, but the peak and end point will be higher. To have it flat through the whole range you can't max out the IWG. You'd probably find if you try and run 7 psi it will suddenly not have this 'shape' to the boost curve. I would be very surprised to see any change to a car before or after a return flow FMIC, back to back, when the core is the same size, and same internal design, with no other changes. Has anyone ever cut the end tank off a return flow FMIC, put on a new straight end tank on the same intercooler and done a test? If they have I haven't seen it.... But hey, if you do make a non return flow design it will fail the "It looks stock and uses stock holes" equation in your case. Really to try and make the power without changing the core things that make the power (i.e the turbo) its going to be a series of small changes to get there. Having a track day car and a street car is very different so simply finding a way to add 'a little more boost' may just be enough in your scenario to do it. This is after all a pretty modest/reasonable goal so eking out the last 0.000001% theoretically on the internet shouldn't be required

Given it's a Hiflow Turbo on a stock manifold, I would be looking at some heavy duty actuators (if they exist, do Turbosmart make them? Can they be made to work) There were some pretty nifty dual port ones that did what they said on the Tin, and did all they could to keep that gate closed. I don't think cams are really going to help much, I had the 260 poncams and figured they didn't do much in the real world back to back for spending the $. I think your money would be better spent on getting an EWG in there (which means manifold or turbo housing changes at the very least), and yeah at that point why not a GT3071? Or realistically, a G550? As you said the list goes on, and you're at a precipice where you'd need a lot of fab to 'fix' it. (Turbo, Manifold, Fabrication, injectors, internals? etc etc etc). I also suspect the car is the way it is because it wants to look entirely stock. I've been there too, and had the same problem. Sometimes people overthink things and think cars don't perform the way they 'should' They almost always perform the way they should. A high flowed OP6 with a 2871 with internal gate, on 98 will do exactly this. For it to do anything different you're gonna have to change stuff. The actuator may get you a few more PSI but its worth noting that you're forcing it to happen, making more backpressure/heat in a small housing etc etc etc. Depending on what you want to use the car for, this could be a non issue or a big issue. You'd definitely hold your boost target if you weld it shut etc! Sometimes these little sanity checks have uses. (like staying on 98. E85 you will likely make your target power, but has its own considerations)

It's true - We don't, but most return FMIC's that are easily accessible, for R34's are Blitz's. Which are more than enough, I've seen many a people ditch the return flow, or upgrade the core for no benefit at all. Specifically people chasing boost drop off issues at high RPM, with both RB's and SR's. They were all internally gated and found that EWG's and better boost control instantly solved the problem of... boost control. 2871's and 3071's and all the IWG 3076's in the world have similar sort of problems to this. If OP is on 98 fuel this is a really solid result. But without knowledge of the boost controller duty cycle noone really knows what's going on fully... Can only give reports of other things that have been known to work.

It is absolutely not the blitz FMIC. I have made 500kw through one, with no such drop off, running 24psi through a stroked motor. How is your boost being controlled? If it is a manual controller then that boost drop off is *normal*. If its electronic, are you certain it is at 100% duty cycle towards the end of the run? If you want more flow out of the same turbo, in this situation your answer is letting it breathe better at higher RPM, and If it is, you need to consider running an external gate, or opening up the exhaust side of the turbo (i.e larger housing). The veteran in me says "Enjoy 265kw and drive it long term and have fun with the car"

Driveline wise, the Sedan has a longer tailshaft. That's it. They are the same car under the panels for everything anyone worries about.

For dragstrip use, none of the turbo options truly matter. For daily driving, none of the options really matter one way or the other. Given the description you may as well go with the easiest thing that fits and one that sounds the best to you. Realistically it's the new G Series Garrett. The BW EFR is a great turbo, worthy of consideration - but it's strengths and your use case just don't overlap.

Oh dear. This is one of those where the sound is not ambiguous and "she'll be right". Something is very off there. Especially given how audible it was.. at the rear of the car.

They are measured from the guard line above the center of the rim, downward to the center of the rim. Expect that you will need to lower your pressures for the track day. If you go out with 32psi cold for your first run, this can end up being 50psi when you are at the end of that session due to the heat put into the tyres. So expect the first session to be pretty greasy. Expect to have to let considerable air out. Can you do this before and go out on like 25psi cold before you go? Yeah you can, but you need to kind of know where to set it, lest you take too much air out and not get them up to the right pressure when hot. Don't sleep on this and be like "ah it'll be fine" the difference between a 50psi tyre when hot and a correctly inflated tyre when hot is massive, and these are keeping you on the road out there when you're doing 200+. Spend the couple minutes after the session and check them 😛

Let the man have his wooshie noises. Note: Wooshie only applicable if using MAP based ECU. (or you plumb it back, losing some wooshie)

Except a smaller turbo often has more area under the curve. Realistically if you're serious you would evaluate the RPM ranges you use most commonly and do some math to determine where you'd get the most gains. DBW and TC can make for better lap times for better auto-management of torque so the driver can have an easier time getting the thing out of a corner. A bigger, laggier turbo making less power in this scenario (if its noticeably less than the amount that TC and DBW combined with the smaller turbo can provide) would be slower. But yeah if you're at this point you probably have telemetry you can lean on on to see what RPM's you're actually in, when you're in them, and how much average power you're making when you want it. I won't say bigger is better but generally if you're under 5000rpm you may be in the wrong gear.

When GT3 racecar manufacturers (Mclaren, Porsche, Acura, Nissan, many other mfg's) all have 500 HP engines lasting 60 hours of use time, or, 12,000km of use (I mean, its track kms though obviously) you know that if they could have made that more reliable... they would have - given they have a massive interest in doing so by having a more reliable motor than their competitors. And they are not cheap cars, nor cheap engines... But um... nah mate I have 1000kw for 8 years no breakdowns bruh #bulletproof

Why would it be legal? Has it been crash tested? Ever seen one ever on a production car? Want to think as to how a chassis mounted wing somehow doesn't protrude a) above the roofline b) wider than the body lines c) beyond the rear bumper People who really require a chassis mount wing don't ask questions about buying one off a shelf. They would have made various other aero by themselves or a very expensive motorsport team. It is very obvious that this one is intended to be bought for clout only.