hardsteppa

once again thank you for your input, and thank you for taking the time to write a detailed post. What would you see as the disadvantages of keeping the 324mm instead of reverting back to the stock 296mm rotor? Also hard headed, well maybe. I do consider I take onboard any opinion or advice that would seem to have merit, and use such information in forming my own opinions on something. I certainly wouldn't say I just accept it straight up as absolute, without considering it's source and validity; one would be just as foolish to do that, as if one were to disregard it outright and not taking information from other sources into consideration at all.

Another negative contribution, honestly, how'd you get to be an administrator, they handing that out for free in Bourke St mall one day or something? And now you're saying yes there will be an increase in stopping power through leverage, despite you previously saying a bigger rotor alone would give no increase in stopping power?? Jeez mate that's 3 for 3, not doing so well there now are you buddy? As for doing mathematicals on it, what am I, a Formula 1 racing team?? Next you'll be claiming it's not worthwhile unless I have them made out of carbon fibre or I'll just be adding extra weight. Calculations, yeah mate I put A to the power of the K and came up with a square root of your mum. FBRacing thanks for your input, it's appreciated when people contribute something useful, even if it's disagreeing with my ideas and theories. You're right of course about can be too much brake, I don't think I'll have that worry only increasing to a 340mm rotor, by my calculations this will give a 4.9% increase in braking torque from the current 324mm rotors, so a little bit but not huge. If I was going to swap out to different calipers, and bigger rotors that won't fit under my current 17in rims then I'll be looking at a much higher cost, in which case I would look to one of the off-the-shelf upgrades that has been tried and tested. The idea behind what I had proposed originally was to get as much 'brake' as I could on a budget, preferably under $800.

bums

Wings, you're right, the extra grinding is a concern; while I think that fitting the 340mm discs can be done (spoke to DBA thru the week and they are in the process of releasing a 340mmX30mm rotor, so would just need to get some hats machined up to suit) but the idea will go on the back-burner for the moment, other projects going on which are a priority. It would also be a bit of $$ to outlay for something that might not turn out 'ideal', so will just keep it on the drawing board for the time being.

well if it isn't 'the assumer'. A larger disc will give more stopping power, increase in braking leverage as above. If you actually read through the other info on the stoptech website it will tell that. If increasing the rotor size didn't change the stopping power then you could whack a massive rotor on the rear and leave the front unchanged, and it wouldn't affect the brake bias, and that's just not true now is it. More importantly, it gives you more control through the brake pedal travel, which is a much bigger consideration in 'performance' rather than what can be achieved when pushing flat-out on the brake pedal, for my circumstance at least. so from that, in your words I'd see a performance increase from just increasing the rotor size, and still keeping the stock calipers.

save weight and don't run coolant, only run engine for 45 second intervals and then let it cool down each time. It's both user-friendly and economical.

Dude i know you're new but come on, there's like 20,000 threads on draining/flushing coolant. Download workshop manual as above, its pretty straightfwd and you don't need to remove thermostat.

Agreed. Shit. Not that hard to make up your own metsl pipe complete with ports, or buy a scotty pipe.

I don't recall saying anything about which is better of the 2; that's something you've made an assumption about. I've never seen them firsthand, or had any experience with them to say. I consider the factory calipers a good unit though and I already have a set, so why would a pay the extra $$$ for new calipers? I just want the stopping power of a bigger disc, which I know from the 324mm upgrade, is enough to make a substantial braking improvement. this is true, although it would still mean finding/buying R34 calipers which is an extra cost to the idea. I'd also think the pad overhang or grind the caliper further will be a bit more of a consideration with a 340mm disc, going 30mm bigger to a 354 disc will really be pushing it there.

No. I'll tell you why. I like the build quality of the OEM Sumitomo calipers so would rather keep them. The GK Tech adapters are solid as a rock and cheap, so I would rather use them. A set of standard discs for VW's etc are only a few hundred bucks, machining at a local engineers 'should' be less than $150. So I can potentially get a solid, quality 340mm brake kit for under $500, and how much are your chinese 356mm brake kits, $2000? I saw Holford Motors have already made an r33 2-piece rotor, but only using 324mm discs. Asked them about using the same hats but with a 340mm disc, he said couldn't see any issue with it but they're not keen to make any more brake kits, pity.

so I've been running the GK Tech front caliper adapters and 324mm GTR discs for a while now and great upgrade, no issues with them, but...always on the lookout for bigger and better. I'm thinking along the lines of, I believe the r32, s14 etc use a 280mm disc and r33 uses 296mm, so if you used the adapters for the r32/s14 but on the R33 instead, it would space the caliper out far enough to fit a 340mm disc. There's a VW disc which is 340mm, 30mm thick, 5 hole (although I don't know the spacing yet), the height is a little off and the centre hole is the wrong size....so not perfect but mayyybe could be worked to fit. An Audi disc which is similar story with the specs. Another option is using an open centre disc and getting some centres made up to fit to the skyline hub, although this might not turn out right first go and would then be at the point cost-wise of just buying a D2 or similar kit. Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on this, or experimented with anything similar?

are you using an air filter? you need to have one in there otherwise kangaroos can get in and smash through the afm on their way to the engine. another option would be to convert to a full standalone ems running a map-based system.

They're even worse if they get behind the wheel, feet are too big for the pedals...can't change gears for shit.

undo it, see what happens.

why would you recommend keeping a pod filter, what are you basing that on, did you get before and after dyno results? And did you end up getting a wideband, and doing a tune and making sure afr's are correct? or you would just 'recommend' this be done?

I agree, curse them for making a simple and effective well-priced boost controller that has been used worldwide successfully on countless cars Like I said, once you get used to thinking in duty cycle it's easy enough. You should try tuning an avcr including using the gear based option, lot more dicking about there rather than just a couple of settings. The duty cycle has everything to do with THE actuator, it's just not a straightforward equation to YOUR actuator....you need to figure it out how much percentage duty cycle bleeds boost away from your actuator until you reach the target boost you're after, and then use start-gain and gain to make it come on quick, and then hold the boost level you want. I'll stop now, as this is all 'search results'.

water is not like oil but oil is like water in this case, it falls from above like rain. Oil feed goes on top, drain underneath. 2x waterlines flow crossways.

I put a capful of oil into the turbo itself once installed (into the oil inlet hole, to be specific, eg don't go pouring it into the compressor outlet), then put on the oilfeed line. I usually change the oil whenever installing a new turbo too, and crank the engine till oil pressure light goes off (if you have an immobiliser fitted you don't need to pull any fuses etc, it already won't start), then start her up. Drive normally till at operating temperature, then turn car off, go inside and play Street Fighter 2 Hyper edition on SNES, and let car cool down completely. My theory on that being let seals/bearings etc reach operating temperature before being subject to excessive load, and then all settle into place as they cool down, after going through a heat cycle. Maybe not needed but I've never had any turbo issues, they have all lasted 30,000 years doing it that way.

Its not a percentage of your actuator, its a percentage of duty cycle. Differenet types of cars have different actuators so the base pressure is different for each, a setting that equals 12psi on one would not automatically equal 12 on another. Its just a number, once you understand it its quite easy to work with.

it could be your afm playing up. But more likely a cylinder misfiring.

That's ok, no need to thank me, your thread is now usable information to people, rather than....well, you know.

I found the difference to be in the on-off throttle responsiveness, rather than outright power, with blocked obviously giving the best response and making the throttle more 'twitchy'.

I've read that too, the conical tapering out from the turbine housing is the 'ideal' design (due to gasses exiting in a spiral fashion?) and with this in mind thought the split pipe would work best, as it did have a nice conical taper at the start of the pipe from the flange. But, I bought both a split pipe (wen the extra mile of ported flanges to give a good smooth entry taper to both pipes) and a bellmouth pipe, and tested back to back....bellmouth was much better, car pulled noticeably harder. I put it down to one of those 'ideal on paper but not in use' things....as in, if you were designing a setup completely from scratch you could come up with a better setup, but fitting a premade product into a premade space and throwing in only 1 aspect of the 'ideal' design like the conical taper, just doesn't cut it so the 'as much space as possible, as soon as possible' design of the bellmouth worked best.

lol, story of my life right there ..anyway, safc neo settings lo throttle - 42%. Hi 50% I now have zero adjustment on low throttle, hi thr rpm point settings are 1050 rpm -6 2200 -7 2800 -7 3200 -7 3500 -7 3800 -7 4100 -5 4500 -5 4800 -6 5100 -5 5500 -3 5800 0 6200 0 6600 0 7000 0 7500 0 Playing around with the safc it's limitations become so apparent, but, I stand by it being suitable for making minor adjustments. If there was a 3rd throttle setting between the hi and low it would make it a lot more usable, as I found using low settings ended up having some sort of unwanted trade-off, hence the low settings ending up being set back to zero. Main thing is I no longer hit r&r in the midrange; achieving 11.5 average afr in that range hasn't made heaps more power but it does stop the annoying cut and picks up *some* power, will be interesting to see on the dyno if I ever get the car there.

So Trent you no doubt know R33 ignition maps like the back of your hand, I am sure you've seen tons. So would appreciate your input - when taking fuel out, by my understanding all that happens is the ecu sees less load by way of a lower voltage afm signal, effectively dropping it down to the next load band (dependent on how much fuel you take out of course) while still keeping it in the same rpm band. So, dropping 7% means it goes from 100% load under full throttle to 93% load, effectively dropping from the top over-rich/retarded load band to the next load band down, or maybe 2nd down. I haven't seen that there is a massive change in timing in the upper bands of the ignition map until you get a few bands further down. I've yet to find a copy of the stock ecu ignition map but from the maps I have seen, this would mean maybe it adds 1-2 degrees timing max by dropping down 1 or 2 load bands - would you say as an average, that is correct?