GTSBoy

f*k, that car is _rough_.

Wouldn't put it past Chairman MaoGowan.

Maybe. But there's no particular reason for them to just because they work on the R33 subframe. And it wouldn't solve the introduced bush twist issue either. The R33 subframe pickup points would be welded on to align the arm pivots on that plane of rotation with the front mount lower than on R32. When you lower the front mount on the R32, the rear mount's axis is still aligned with the original front mount's higher location. Thus you load the rear bush when you push the front one down. There would be no escaping having to put sphericals in at least the rear bush location. I would assume that the GKTech kit's front brackets would be set up to work with the rotated axis of the front bush and wouldn't absolutely require the spherical there, but probably safer to do both, plus take out any hope of the car soaking up any NVH!

I already have an A31 subframe that I spent a lot of time and effort (stripping, cleaning, painting, bushing) fitting to get rid of HICAS. It has also been noted that the subframes in the later S chassis cars are lighter duty than the R chassis cars, for whatever bizarre reason. So that would be a somewhat backward step. It's very much a "standard' thing to do. You fab up some new little bracket bits and weld them on so that the LCA is rotated down from the original location, by about 2". It's normally done with the subframe out of the car because it is not a lot of fun trying to fab it all up and weld the bits on in the right place upside down on a hoist. You have to have the LCA available to fit up because you have to weld the new brackets on in the location that is defined by where the front inner of the LCA ends up when you rotate it down from the original spot. Motive did a video on it for the R32 GTR project sometime last year. That really made me realise that the best possible thing would be a something that used one or both of the original bracket points as a locator to define where you had to put the new brackets. And lo and behold....GKTech to the rescue. Flap disc off some paint, weld on, repaint, done in an hour. Apart from having to do the spherical bush conversion on the LCA first.

I wouldn't be unsure about fitting them. As soon as I manage to escape the hermit kingdom of WA I'll be ordering some and some spherical bush replacements for the LCA and wanging them on the car.

Interdarsting. Not on their "All Products" list page. Not findable by searching with keywords. How did you locate them?

Hmmm. What I want to know is, why the f**k are they available on the US site and not on the parent (Australian) site? I would be all over these like a fat kid on a mars bar if I knew they existed. As to the design: It appears to be exactly what I have been imagining in my head to fabricobble to achieve that goal without having to remove the subframe. As to the steel guage: It appears to be fine. It's about the same as the existing brackets. It is welded on the underside of the frame and braced up to one side of the original bracket. Seems like it should be OK. I might have to ask the (unts why they're not offering it here in Oz.

Always bleed a master before trying to bleed the line. That's the point of having a bleeder on a master. Having said that, you will inevitably end up going back and forth between them trying to get a pedal anyway. So it probably doesn't matter.

If by housing you mean you cracked the boss off the block, then......wtf? Actually, how the f**k? Anyway, yes, you could tap the boss in between. It's not ideal, because it obviously won't be hearing the same things in that location that it would in the original location (ie, it'll be much further away from cylinder 6 than the original location)....but it will still "work". When you say "I tried JB weld".....do you mean that you attempted to stick the broken chunk of cast iron back on with JB weld in the crack? Because that obviously won't work. You could probably jam a blob of JB weld/Devcon/Selleys gorilla snot onto the damaged area, then drill out and tap the hole, and possibly have it stay put.

If you're doing porting, it probably doesn't matter that the NA Neo ports start out small. It's just a bit more metal too remove - provided that the eater jackets aren't actually closer to the port walls, which is an unknown (at least to me). Neo is simply better. Better combustion chamber shape, better valve train. Arguably better valve angle but I actually don't know what this does to the port shape around the short turn, so it could be a win-lose situation there. But..... here we are talking about small differences. It's not as if there's 50HP available between your best option and your worst option. If it is more than 20HP I'll be very surprised.

You may need to put something between the two pieces of trim to prise them apart while you turn the clip. There's no science here. They are very simple, just a little annoying sometimes.

Squeeze the release and pull it apart.

Well, yes, because I can't imagine living with a stupidly loud unmuffled exhaust for long anyway. But if you want it stupidly loud and unmuffled, then you could just fit a 2" orifice plate into one of the flanges to cause some restriction, or choe the turbo inlet down, or something, to reduce flow. Then when you fix the management problem, you retain the stupidly loud unmuffled exhaust. I go on about the stupidly loud unmuffled exhaust a bit, because......hearing damage. I have it. Wanna know how I got it?

I saw the E in the model number and stopped thinking. Might not be correct there.

As I said, I'm not trying to talk you out of it. Just pointing out that you should not get your hopes up that a small 6 cylinder twin cam is going to make it feel like a proper sports car. I have no doubt that if you pay someone big money they can be made to make good power. Look at the old Holden 202 - they are pushing well over 300HP out of those nowadays. But back in my day (the 80s) it was a struggle to get 200HP out of them. People learnt what to do to make them make power. But it costs. There hasn't been a heap of development into making NA RBs make a lot of power, because.....the lure of the turbo reveals how poor the value proposition is. Yes, they sound bloody awesome revving to the moon through open ram tubes and long primary extractors. But the time taken to run from the bottom of the rev range to the top of the rev range reveals that they don't make a lot of power doing it. Listen too the Hakosuka video for the nearest example.

4 dr 2L NA manual with 4.3 diff?

Doesn't rev to 12k , by the way. Typical American cock throttling.

Same car, I think they mention the power output in it, but I'm on a metered connection, so am not going to sit through any more of Jackie Chan's mindless f**king dribble.

Cost is not the point. 30 yr old worn out linkages and butterflies that don't seal..... vs brand new something else. I know what I would be doing. If there wasn't already an ITB setup available for a similar engine, you wouldn't even be considering using 30 yr old worn out shit. You'd be looking at other options straight up. My brother-in-law built up a set of ITBs for a n NA 7M from scratch (from bike TBs), because that was the only option. He then did the same for a 2JZ. I mean, shit, it's not even as if the RB26 setup is bolt on. You have to do so much f**king around to put them on that it is simply not worth the pain unless you like the pain. Not in any meaningful way. The age difference probably explained all those failures. RB25DE made no power from factory, so had no need to have good flowing ports. The Neo 25DEs in particular, used the concept of keeping the ports small to keep the velocity high to maximise in-cylinder mixing. Remember that the whole point of the Neo was to meet the ELV emissions requirements that the vanilla RBs had no hope of achieving. Not really. It's just that you can overcome poor head flow with more boost. That's not a clever way to do things, because inefficiency is still inefficiency. So OEM engineers tend not to do it that way! Meh - they're just not that exciting. Have a google around for how much power people are actually making out of worked NA RBs. They're OK, but they hardly set the world on fire. You'd probably make a lot more power with any of the more modern 2.4-2.5L 4 cylinders, as pedestrian and horrible as they are. As an example - my NA 2JZ example from above. ITBs, good extractors, cams, 20% capacity advantage over an RB25, and certainly no worse engine design (actually a substantially better engine than the RB)..... made about 140rwkW. Was nice to drive, but certainly wasn't fast. Even if you can turn it to 9.5k rpm and maintain torque production up at those revs (ie, lots of cam!) then you still only make maybe 20 kW more. I'm not trying to dissuade you from anything. Just pointing out that the NA RBs are not some super engine. They don't hold a magical key to massive power (TM) just because they are newer and twin cam. The RB bottom end is actually not that far removed from the L series bottom end on which it was based. The basic engine architecture goes back to the Mercedes in-line 4s and 6s of the 1960s that Nissan copied to come up with the L series. http://build-threads.com/admin/z31-300zx-project-z432/

There are literally dozens of aftermarket throttlebodies in DCOE carby format. The RB26 ITBs are so very very close to the DCOE bolt pattern that it is difficult to believe that Nissan came that close and didn't actually just use the DCOE pattern. Then, you can look at just about any EFI motorbike from Suzuki, Yamaha, Honda, etc that used single throttles, in whatever size floats your boat. 45mm? 48mm? Larger? They're all out there. Just build manifold and plenum and linkages to suit. As for compression and cams - the larger the cam duration, the more compression you can run. Just sayin'. And as for cost for bottom end.....8500 rpm is well within the limits of the stock bottom end. Especially NA. It won't cost much to make it good for >9000. Just need some light pistons and some moderately strong rods and bolts. On the subject of VCT.....all RB25s have it (except for the very first ones in the R32). The vanilla 25s in the R33 era cars were all VCT. There's almost no difference in the VCT between vanilla and Neo engines. The difference between Neos and vanilla 25s is that the Neos have solid lifters, a different included angle in the valves with a shallow combustion chamber. And in the NAs.....not particularly good flowing ports. I would not write off the power potential of an L series vs an RB25DE though, neo or not. 2.8L & 3L (and larger) L series builds, even running Mikunis, have made really large power. There is nothing wrong with the single cam engines. The twin cams are not inherently a massive leap in power potential.

Waste you money not. There are better ways to get ITBs than to strap on 30 year old GTR taxed stuff. So....stock then? But I urge 12:1 compression and E85, 300° cams and the best extractors money can buy (ie built, not bought, seeing as there probably isn't a decent off the shelf option anyway).

Yeah, worth it, if needed. Also not difficult. Just need a pan rail water/laser cut and then some fabrication. Sensible option anyway. Why make life harder than it needs to be? I think there can't have been too many AWD NA Stageas around. The RB25DE is a toothless piece of shit (no offence to your chosen engine for your conversion) when in a heavy station wagon. You wouldn't want to add the burden of AWD transfer case and front diff etc. Therefore they are likely all from 2WD Stageas or NA Skylines.

Yes.

Plus, if you wanted to do a kit, you'd be smarter to avoid relying on having to obtain RB26 ITBs. You'd want to use DCOE pattern or readily available motorbike single throttles or something actually available and not subject to GTR tax.