GTSBoy

Rack boot? Green liquid is more likely to be coolant that got there somehow during some previous terrible event. What does it taste like?

If doing that ^, I'd take the idle up valve out and plug the hole in the pump.

It's a load sense idle up valve.

Plug and play. Need a tune. It's a PowerFC, same as any other PFC, just not needing an AFM.

Genuine GTR seat? There are none you would actually want for <$3k a pair.

Should have sounded the dive klaxon first.

49719 is the cooler loop. Right at the front, LHS of that diagram. Return line from rack (LP side) goes to cooler loop on RHS front of car, then back under engine and returns to bottom of tank. 49717M is feed from tank to pump. HP line out of pump is thick rubber, followed by the hard line that runs down to crossmember and runs in parallel (but opposite flow direction) to the LP return line. Nothing goes anywhere near the firewall or interior of car. The closest they get to that is the connections on the rack.

Don't worry about. Just don't try to drive hard enough to make boost and you'll be fine.

Yes. This has already been said. It is a loop of hardline in front of the radiator. Because.... the pump is on the LHS and the steering rack hydraulic connections are where they always are on a RHD steering rack....on the RHS. The high pressure line goes down under the engine, along the crossmember, like it does on all Skylines. Don't just throw expensive braided hoses/other kits at it. Work out what is wrong and fix that.

Insert tab A into slot B?

Or, just take PS pump off and inspect? Does no-one do this any more?

No idea. It's too weird.

The jack holds itself in place. You slip it down into the receptacle and give the input a twist to open it up a little and jam itself in there.

The GTT probably only has the same little bag of tools that the R32 had, which contained useless pliers, a spanner or two, a screwdriver thingo, and the handle and crank stuff for the jack.

? 2s of searching finds this thread

Wasn't there a thread on this very subject just a few weeks ago?

It can't be some stupidly proprietary video signal coming out of it that only Nissan's can understand. Surely you can just find some generic camera to stuff in there and use hot melt glue/blu-tac/gaffer tape to hold it in place if need be?

Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).

Nah, it's not the reduced knock margin. It is a direct mechanical effect of having to initiate the combustion earlier, while the piston is still rising, which starts to exert combustion pressure on the rising piston earlier, making the rest of the engine work harder to finish driving the piston up to TDC where the combustion pressure stops being a negative and starts being a positive. Your modern engine that only needs ~10° to make MBT doesn't waste the other 10 or so degrees of crank rotation. That's almost all of it. The difference in knock margin might go either way. Remember that modern engines to which you are currently comparing the long tractor engine (the RB) are now running super high compression, direct injection, tricky cam control and maybe even cylinder pressure sensors. You're not comparing apples with other fruit. It's apples and sea weed, or some other evolutionarily primitive vegetation. And remember, squish only really comes into play at the very end of the stroke. It certainly does good things, but it is not the biggest contributor to what's going on. It is quite possibly much less important in 4 valve head than 2 valvers also, because there is so much less squish available to a 4 valve anyway.

Johnny's just upset because he sees that he's spent mutliple BMW money on his dirty Datto over the years and wishes he'd put the money into a stocksbro business prior to the market explosion and then he'd be rolling in BMWs, dead hookers and coke.

Oh, and only having done this task yesterday, I've now driven the car ~60km since, and while it is hard to avoid placebo effect and confirmation bias, I reckon that some annoyances I had with the way the car has been behaving have improved. Which....kinda makes sense, I guess. If the bushes were really stiff and resisting rotation, they would have been contributing to the effective wheel rate. And if it was more so on one side (which it was, because one side was worse than the other) then.... you might imagine that the additional rate would be asymmetric, and potentially even different between compression and rebound. And so... the car has been twitchy at higher speeds - like freeway on ramps. It really shouldn't be. The wheel alignment is good and there are no (other) known problems elsewhere in the suspension. But at 90-100 on a long sweeping ramp, tiny steering wheel motions would make it feel like it wanted to rear steer. Quite nervous. At lower speeds it would heave about in a manner that it didn't use to. Didn't want to put power down, etc etc. Now...seems to behave better. Am going to have to concentrate on the various corners where it has exhibited weirdness, on the rare occasions when I can get a decent run at them without Methanial getting in the way in his D-Max/Ranger/LDV Van/etc.

Water's still going to come in without the side hatch being refitted.

H8R

I was only moderately grumpy. I was in fact quiet happy that there weren't still stock bushes in there, because that requires more effort to get them out. They were SuperPro, so definitely zincish. It is very much like the coating wasn't done properly. They were almost certainly of the vintage where the supplied lube with such things was that black messy crap. Some lithium based horror. They have since moved onto the silicone&PTFE greases which are much more sticky and water resistant. I shall have to mark my calendar to have a look at these in 5 years' time.

Well.... yes and perhaps no. It depends on what you mean by "spool". For most of us, the point that we would describe as where the turbo is "spooling" is the point where the wheel speed gets high enough for it to start making some boost. This is coincidentally around about the point where it starts making noise - hence the "spooling" sound. If that is what you mean, then no - the wastegate should still be shut at this point. The boost will still be way below the point where it should start opening. If, on the other hand, you mean "spool" as "reach full boost", then yes. At the point where the boost has reached target, then boost control has already started. The wastegate is already open, and has been for some time. Some short time, definitely, but still, some time. If you have no boost controller - just the wastegate actuator connected to the boost source, then you have a mechanical system working as a pressure balance. There is pressure on one side of the wastegate actuator's diaphragm from the spring, and pressure on the other side coming from the boost measurement location (the "source"). This is not a digital thing. The wastegate does not stay shut until the boost pressure reaches the spring "pressure". The spring will start to compress as soon as you start to apply any pressure onto it. This can be controlled somewhat by adding pre-load into the spring, but you cannot add enough preload to make it into a digital switch behaviour. The wastegate will crack open and start to leak exhaust out (and therefore not though the turbine) well before you reach the target boost pressure. Electronic (and some mechanical/pneumatic) boost controllers will act to prevent the boost source applying pressure to the actuator until just before you reach target boost, thus preventing the wastegate from creeping open. And some boost controllers will apply boost pressure on the spring side to further push it shut. And this can be be necessary because the exhaust pressure in the manifold also pushes on the wastegate valve and tries to open it and you cab get it leaking even without it being connected to the boost source.