GTSBoy

N2 canister?

My point is, considering it's an NA, there are no performance improvements available from an intake change anyway. So spend your money where it will do some good. Upgrade brakes, or tyres, or suspension bushes, or any of a thousand things that will reap you a noticeable improvement in the car.

That's a hell of a question. There's probably no argument that the performance increase you get for your $400 is worth it. If you look at the "cost of a horsepower" and then consider what those HP are worth when they're available some hundreds of rpm earlier, it is probably some of the best value performance available - if you're looking for response. Drag cars need not really apply. For me, the whole prospect of buying a turbo is fraught with.....well, I can buy a HG hiflow for about a grand, but if I want to spec it up a bit it will cost me closer to $1500. And then it's just a highflow and I'd probably be smarter with a new turbo, and that will get me closer to $2k. And if I'm in for that much money for a turbo, then why am I not considering an appropriate sized EFR or G series for about $3k? And all of a sudden I have probably too much turbo for a nice streeter anyway (I mean seriously, how many seconds of value will I get from a 600HP turbo in a year? On the street that is.) I think if I were willing to stick with a highflow, because I have a Neo, the OP6 housing would probably benefit from the BB centre to make sure it stays as responsive as possible. It just means you're not buying a turbo for less than the psychological threshold of a grand. The responsiveness could be true of the ATR also, but I don't really know what the performance delta is. The money delta is kinda less of a concern, because you're already starting at nearly $1500. Know what I mean?

How much force pushing the slave piston back out? About what you'd expect from the rubber boot pushing back?

It's a pulsation damper. Shouldn't cause any problems. When people put braided clutch hoses on this is usually removed and the pedal feel changes, but that's about it. Your second, more complete description does make it sound like the master has pressure on it. That would either be because something is wrong at the clutch pedal (maladjusted, or something worn/broken, like the pivot or the pedalbox itself), or there is a problem in the master such that it is retaining pressure and not relieving it.

The highflow is about $400 less than the ATR43 if you spec both with a BB centre. Think 950 vs 1370 and 1350 vs 1770 without and with BB respectively.

It's either a hydraulic problem (master or slave internally bypassing) or a mechanical problem in the clutch itself (broken springs/fingers/rivets/whatever). The last part of your symptoms make it sound like the clutch is broken.

To what end? It's not going to be an upgrade, unless you consider 0.35kW extra an upgrade.

I would say that there is absolutely no problem with running WMI, just so long as you do it properly. You need a good ECU so that you can have safety maps. You either need a really robust WMI system with enough sensors to know when it is working or broken and with a reliable output to the ECU so that the ECU can know also and go to safety, OR, you run it with the very decent ECU with enough sensors for safety. The ECU needs to also be handling boost control - because you can't make power without boost and you can't run big boost even with "safe" maps when you don't have your WMI available. The smart approach would be to have EGT monitoring on each cylinder as a last ditch safety catch, that will cause the ECU to go to safety if temp limits are exceeded. So you're looking at top end Haltech/Link/Syvecs/Motec level gear here.

Shouldn't be a problem to rewire the 33 solenoid to the 32 loom. Does the same job, so should be equivalent. You can always measure the resistance of both as a double check.

15 years ago......... 222 posts to his count. Good luck

The hardware (transfer case, etc) is actually not that much different. Better, yes, but the evolution was mostly in the electronics. Faster processors (particularly on the 34) and better "program" for torque distribution is where it's at.

There's a bloody 10Nm tolerance in the manual. Even visually estimating 110° would be better than that!

Potato tomato

Fixed that for you.

If the spec on the bolts is torque, use torque. if the spec on the bolts is angle, use angle. Accept no substitutes.

No. Master and slave cylinders are pistons with seals. When the seals are f**ked, the hydraulic fluid is not all pushed along in front of the seal, it slips past the seal, reducing the hydraulic power. If it is not a hydraulic problem, then it is something mechanically f**ked in the clutch.

You're American aren't you? It explains the difference in attitude. In Oz we like to actually make stuff from scratch. We can see from all the US car media that the only way to do something is to buy the kit, put on the nitrile gloves and fit it. I would rather an exhaust manifold that I fabricated myself than almost any other option. And there's nothing wrong with low mount single turbos on GTRs if you're not trying to cram in a big one. For your power goal and stated desire to keep it looking a bit original, it would be a sensible choice. And, just harking back to the question/point about why BMW choose to use twins......it's also all about the very modern control systems that they have for them. The twin turbo systems that came out on 2JZ and 13B after the GTRs simple parallel system were intended to widen the torque band, but suffered from having control systems that weren't really ready for the big time. Fast forward 20 years and the control systems that the OEM engineers can put onto them now are just stupendous. Plenty of processing power and fantastic actuators of various sorts. It's a different world. And it is a different world - meaning that it does not apply to clunky old GTR twin turbos. So the selection logic that leads BMW to choose twins does not carry over.

I don't know. Well, actually, if the RB30 slave is for the NA box, then probably yes, because that box is related to the RB20 boxes and they are definitely different to RB25. The RB30 turbo box is basically the same box as the RB25, and so there is a better chance that the slaves would be same-ish. Bypassing is an interval event. Which tells you that it is not disengaging sufficiently. Which is either lack of hydraulic effect, or something broken at the clutch itself. The reason that it slipped under power when you lengthened the rod was that you were always applying load onto the clutch release, which is a no-no and wears shit out real fast.

None of that is a problem for anyone who can think and who can google a little bit to see what mistakes to avoid. AFM (correct term for a Nissan) is no problem, whether using Nistune or any aftermarket ECU. Can go intake side, can go boost side, can be deleted. Not even worth the time bringing it up. And, here's the kicker.....you say "without the experience or knowledge of what works and what doesn't". Um...this stuff has been done for 30 years now. There is plenty of knowledge and experience. It wouldn't take me 3 minutes to decide on a plan and a shopping list, and I don't even own a GTR.

That makes no sense. Why would you care about cold start emissions specifically but not the fact that your emissions compliance is completely out the window (both legally and in material effect of what's flowing out the exhaust) as soon as you modify? Authorities and OEMs make a big deal of cold start emissions, but in the context of how much it contributes to the total emissions emitted by your car, it's only a really short fraction of the operating time. Worrying about it and not worrying about the rest of the operation is fuzzy logic. Also makes no sense. It's like saying "I was born with 3 legs and no dick so I'll just stay that way".

Yuh....but how would you control it? As I said, the TCU is in the ECU. They talk to each other directly - it's not as if you can plug in another TCU. And the TCU you have is unlikley to want to talk to a different tranny.

That would never be the case. It is either hydraulic (ie, master or slave bypassing), or the clutch has a mechanical problem.

All of those questions are moot. You change the factory twins to something else and the emissions compliance is already f**ked. Not to mention that you will have to be tuning the/an ECU and that is against the rules anyway. Any new (big) single will have exactly the same life expectancy, at minimum, as any replacement twins. Probably better, because Thermal management should be a walk in the park with a single, compared to low mount twins. Regardless of whether the single is high or low mounted, you don't have one turbo snuggled up against the exhaust outlet of the other, inlet air coming past hot exhaust components. You can insulate the manifold, rear housing and dump more easily when you only have to fit one turbo into the space, instead of 2 turbos and all their associated plumbing. And if you high mount it, you just put some decent shielding on the bonnet also, and make sure some air is ducted up to the top of the engine bay. Proper intake design........ at what crazy place in anybody's imagination is a twin turbo intake system easier to get right than a single?

I don't think so. Remember that the TCS is in the ECU, and they are only meant to talk to the gearbox type that they were intended for. I'd bet a few bucks that only the RE040300274624376478 or whatever it is that lived behind RB25DET Neos will do. Keep in mind that there was only a short window of time in Nissan land where they were doing slightly tricky boxes (with steering wheel shift, etc) on the RBs. Essentially just the 3-4 years of the R34. After that, it all went VQ.