Gav

Keep the clutch pedal depressed - I find the engine is extremely responsive to revving by doing this.

Yer - but there aren't heaps of choices for the F160 front diff

It's not often that I agree with R32Nismoid, but he's right on this one. I was never able to get stable boost on my large internally gated terbs (GT-RS) with the old AVCR fitted. By going to a dual solenoid unit I was able to get a much steeper boost raise without spiking (i.e. wastegates are kept absolutely closed until desired boost is hit and then controlled to give a very stable boost). As previously recommended, try a manual boost controller or even direct off the actuator springs. I think the HKS kits come with 1 bar actuators from memory?

I also run the same as DiRTgarage - twin spark CDI with splitfires. It certainly gives a strong spark and stopped the infamous "intermittant misfire" that so many PFC owners report. I bought the vehicle specific harness also which makes this a "plug and play" device to install.

I'm intrigued with the white engine bay? Was the car originally pearl red from factory?

I see the dyno run was done in 3rd. I'm not sure if this affects peak power (probably will), but it certainly changes the shape of the curve and makes it inaccurate to compare with other dyno graphs done in in final drive ratio (4th gear).

Some good, honest advice in this thread forthe new GT-R buyer. The best advice I can give is: * be honest with yourself as to if you can really afford to run it * buy yourself a daily driver in addition to the GT-R When you get a well sorted GT-R on the track and feel the ATTESSA pull you out of a corner on full power the cost and anguish of ownership is quickly forgotten.

Yer - but we all know that an R33 isn't a "proper" GT-R

For those of you that have access to Autospeed online magazine have a look at the following article: More Go for the Golf For those that don't I've quoted a key paragraph: "Retailing for AUD$1999, the APR ECU reflash gives the little Volkswagen an amazing 47 percent more torque and 28 percent more power. The standard 147kW/280Nm output pales in comparison to the reflashed 188kW/411Nm output. So what is the reflashing process and what’s changed in the program? In contrast to other approaches to engine management modification, the APR reflash involves absolutely no wiring. First, a standalone PC is connected to the OBDII-style VAG-COM port and the standard program is logged. The appropriate aftermarket tune is then selected from a secure proprietor website and is flashed into the ECU. The entire process takes around 30 minutes." These OBDII-style reflash programs are pretty bloody expensive in my opinion. Sure the results are quoted as being flash (excuse the pun), but really - for a straight plug in and 20 minutes time there is very little in labour and nothing in parts cost (except a laptop and cable outlay). OK - development costs you say? Well, at 2 grand a hit and acknowledgement that this same software is suitable for all market versions of this model I suspect that there is a fairly hefty profit margin in this for the developers. How many Mark V GTi Golfs have/will been made I wonder? Comments?

With and experienced tuner who has a feel for such things you will be amazed at the difference altering the cam timing cam do for the RB26. In my case it really changed the boost threshold of the notoriously laggy GT-RS terbs that I run. As said before, to end doesn't really seem to suffer much. As there is no such thing as a "free ride" what I suspect does suffer is exhaust emmissions and this is why there are power/torque gains to be made over factory cam timing settings. That said, you have a large displacement and small terb combo already so you already should have a responsive setup. Never the less, I'm sure the extra tuning/labour costs of experimenting with cam timing will pay dividends. Good luck and keep us posted!

Unless you are using a D-Jetro where you have the pressure sensors already there.

A good topic! Turbo technology (especially response versus peak power) has improved a lot in recent years. I feel sure you could match or better the performance of two low mounts with a single terb and reduce cost/complexity at the same time. Perhaps this is where the RB26 guys can learn from the RB25 experiences?

But R31Nismoid is never wrong - just ask him

I've just rebuilt my box with an OSG cros mission set. I'm seeing around 550 awhp through a 2.8L. I won't have the chance to judge for myself until I'm back in Oz early next year. I made the choice after speaking to Leewah who runs a hell of a lot power than I ever will. He told me a while back that so far his gearbox has lived up to the abuse he has dealt it. Dog engagement (helical or straight cut) gears will in theory take more power as the gear face can be widened to take up the space that the syncros once occupied. This comes at a price of increased noise and vibration and an alternative gear changing style, however.

I've got my old GT-R front/rear brakes (non-Brembo) and factory rims available if you're interested. Not really trying to sell, but a cheap upgrade for you none the less. Drop me a PM if you're keen. Nice ride BTW - like the 32s in black (although I'm somewhat biased )

Congrats - nice curve and typically strong through the midrange as the 25/30s tend to be. As R31Nismoid pointed out, I suspect that there is a bit of positive correction applied by the high IT value of 63. Is this on a 2wd or 4wd dyno?

I converted my solid centre HKS twin plate to a sprung centre. Absolutely transformed the car (was a bitch to drive previously in stop start traffic) and seems to be surviving 400 rwkw abuse OK.

Same setup as I have on my GT-R. Very good spark reliability at high revs and boost! (free bump btw)

Allow around $1100 to $1500 for labour, syncros, bearings and seals from a gearbox reconditioner.

It's not being picky, but just a response to a broard and sweeping statement from you that is not based on personal experience. I'm speaking from personal experience with big low mount terbs - in particular the GT-RS units. MarkR34 fitted such a manifold to his R34 with GT-RS terbs fitted and the problem was almost eliminated. I did the same and achieved the same results. Turbo shuffling isn't really a huge problem and does no real harm, it's just an annoying side affect of twin low mount terbs with large compressor wheels. The real "cure" (if you want to call it that) is to fit small compressor wheel units (or a single). Indeed I believe you are fitting GT-SS units?

You really do come out with some stupid comments sometimes

Unfortunately I'm overseas at the moment and can't log a run at full throttle and constant boost, but I'd be really interested to see a log of load vs revs under these conditions. Do any D-jetro uses have such a log handy?

Cheers Paul - I actually expected to raise the hair on your back by my response I think that you may be right - since the tuner does spend more time perhaps that's where the extra power comes from. I suspect that it may also be that the D-jetro is replacing an L-jetro where the AFMs are already out of resolution so the gain in top end may have been possible by swapping to larger AFMs anyway? One other comment that I remember reading from the Datalogit forum. One of the Datalogit developers is adamant that the D-jetro only uses pressure for the load calculation axis. As you have stated this would mean that at constant manifold pressure the map essentially becomes 2 dimensional (i.e. no movement along the load axis). I am absolutely certain that I have movement along the load axis even when the boost is rock steady (as shown by both the Apexi sensors and the Blitz BC sensors). My gut feel is that it takes reference from the revs and probably the TPS when calculating the load value of each point. Thoughts?

I will provide a contrary opinion to paulr33. This is a debate that that has been running for some while and while paulr33 is extremely knowledgeable in his coverage of the PFC, he has a bias towards the standard L-jetro PFC. His opinion is one based on theory and research and not on personal experience with GT-Rs. I have run L-jetro PFC, Wolf3D (Map sensor) and D-jetro PFC on my GT-R. Although each upgrade has brought with it engine mods, the D-jetro is by far MY preferred option for large low mount turbos. The D-jetro has delivered very good drivability and almost eliminated turbo shuffle. Back to back I have seen 2 GT-Rs gain power by converting to the D-jetro PFC. As paulr33 has stated there is no obvious reason why this system should gain power, but I have seen it done with my own eyes. I guess this aspect will be debated for a time to come. The D-Jetro has the benefit of measuring pressure directly at the plenum. This does indeed improve response where there is a significant volume in the intercooler and associated pipework. The L-jetro does not take into account the existing pressure within the induction tract and therefore the instantaneous engine load can vary depending on how much pressure is present when you first open the throttle. Th D-jetro also does a good job at dealing with turbo shuffle - particularly where air reversion back through the AFMs is a contributing factor. There are downsides as previously stated above including the need to fit the map sensors (a fiddly job) and the requirement to splice into the ECU harness. Tuning is also more involved and will most likely cost you more than a std PFC. I realise that my comments are contrary to some (many) posters here on the board, but I guess that's what forums are all about - hey? Please feel free to PM me with questions. Cheers Gav

There's a few GT-Rs in Perth (including mine) running Pauter rods and they have all copped and survived a heap of abuse. http://www.pauter.com/4340_rods.htm When I win lotto and build my super responsive RB28, these are the ones I'll be using http://www.pauter.com/titanium.htm