Steve

85W/140 - seems to work well, diff isnt too noisey - which is handy when you are running all aluminium pineapples. ALOT cheaper than the Castrol SAF-XA 75W160, which I probably would run if I had the $$ to, or the sponsorship like some on here

Sydneykid, I was always under the impression that camber was (mainly) to counteract under roll on the tyres? using this line, wouldnt the amount of camber used have alot to to do with what sort of tyres you have and how they are fitted to the rims (amount of sidewall stretch)? Or am I completely off target here?

For drift, I suggest you try running 1 mm total toe out on the front, 3 to 4mm total in on the rear, and go from there. If your car is excessively lowered you may find you are getting a bit too much bump steer, then either raise your car (suggested and cheapest), change the rack ends to maintain the optimum relationship with lower control arms, or go the non handling option and run toe in on the front (not recommended). Toe out on the front gives good turn in, and in on the rear gives much better control when sideways, but what suits you best will be, to some degree, an individual thing depending on how much traction and power you have and your driving style.

Chris, I am running penrite limslip

AFAIK, no

Bl4cK32, just to clear up a couple of things, aluminium pineapples will increase the NVH, as will poly. Poly bushes will allow you to change the geometry of the cradle, BUT, as so commonly believed, DO NOT set up for slip - this makes absolutely no sense, and will make your car handle like a pig. For drift, you NEED traction - otherwise you just spin out all the time. There are a few ways you can go with pineapples - using both alluminium and poly or just poly or just aluminium. If you are concerned about NVH, use poly upper and aluminium lower pineapples. Running a mech diff, this is probably the way to go if you dont want largely increased NVH. I have used poly only, poly and alluminium and alluminium only. I only noticed a major increase in nvh with all alluminium, as you would expect. If you are changing the sub frame bushes, it would be worth fitting pineapples for grip (needed in your case ) at the same time, as you have to drop the cradle to do them - save dropping the cradle twice. (for grip, you need to put pineapples at the front between the body and the cradle, tilting the front down.) If you want grip, also consider traction rods (D1 Garage do a modified OEM traction arm for around $40, works well). Also, if you are going the drift way, run around 3 to 4 mm total toe in on the rear, or more, as it will help keep the back end tight when you are sideways, ie, it wont just swing around all over the place. With the amount of torque you are putting down it wont hurt at all. A well set up drift car has MASSIVE grip, its a common myth that they dont. Also, I hope you have pissed off the hicas by now

Just block off the bov

I am glad, as R31 POWER, that I am not the only one...

Maybe we could e-mail a link to this tread to 'Myth Busters'

Roy, there are some good points there, to play devils advocate: back in F1 turbo days, they did have to push in their clutch to change, and you can here the turbo flutter Pop and fart - my car does that, but maybe its more to do with the fact that they will cut spark rather then fuel on trailing throttle - it helps cool the engine and reduces risk of overrun damaging the engine. different turbos - hell yes, they are at the cutting edge, the technology they trial makes its way on to our cars - why havent they created cutting edge bovs if they are so relevant? I am not sure how traction control would relevant to compressor damage by reversion, or change the throttle response for a tubo that has 'stalled' (note, I dont believe they stall, read the autospeed article) Boost levels seemed to change as the years went past, it was not unusual for F1 to run 3 bar, up to 4+ in qualifying (they would wire their wastegates shut), with huge intercoolers. I am not sure what indi cars use, or lemans You make some good points Roy, there are some very good points made through this whole thread - I just cant get over the whole issue about perfromance and reliability - if a bov is so vital, why wouldnt they use them - if it extends the life of the turbo, I dont see why they wouldnt use one, if it improves performance, I dont see why they wouldnt use them. These motor sports are the test beds for developement of engines, the performance lessons find their way onto our cars - without them its quite possible we would all still be running push rod technology. I am not saying that the technology, dollars etc doesnt completely eclipse what we, as everyday users have - but things that work - work. If they dont work, they dont get used. To summarise, BOVs only became popular after manufacturers started fitting them - there is strong evidence to suggest this was for NVH and emissions (in afm equipped cars) purposes. No body used them before this point. There are people, such as Bai in Japan, alot of jap workshops with D1 cars, guys I know here in aust, the likes of rice racer who have had none of the dreaded reliability or lack of power issues that are touted by so many to threaten a car without a bov. I havent had any of the dreaded problems I am supposed to. F1 didtn use them, Le mans - cars dont use them, indi cars dont use them, Rod Millen's 1000bhp 2L truck doesnt use one. Simon Gishus when asked "What are some areas where people often make errors modifying their turbo car?" answered "the bov" and went on to say he lost time on the track when using one, that they are there purely for emmissions http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1457/article.html very good article, not many people here, infact arguabley no one here could argue with the guy - his experience and results speaks for itself Even Sydneykid said he doesnt allow the bov to full vent pressure Sydneykid also used the example of the Sierra turbo failure as an example of why to use a bov - however the DJR Sierras at bathurst that didnt use bovs - dominated over Sierras with bovs (eg caltex) Garret said they have never seen results to show the value of a bov I have seen first hand aftermaket bovs that leak, limiting power and causing the turbo to overspeed - this could easily kill a fragile oem R33 turbo. Plenty of people on this forum talk of the dramas they have found when fitting aftermarket bovs There are threads on here detailing how to jack up the stock bov - to stop it from leaking Mostly real life, track proven, research backed results On the other side, you have Bov companies - from the turbosmart webpage claim a BOV can help to: "eliminate compressor surge when changing gears. Excessive backpressure is created when the throttle is closed during gear changes or deceleration, causing turbo cavitation. This is detrimental to the life of your turbocharger; however fitting a BOV will substantially improve this problem." quite the opposite of Simon Gishus (who do you think has more performance cred? and who is trying to sell bovs?) You also have the 'street racer' theory as pointed out by Runn3r - well, that would be assuming that street racers never are about posing - everybody look at me, I got a fully sick turbo car, goes psssst, its the loudest one on the market. hell even the bov companies like turbosmart advertise 'our loudest bov' - hmm, performance cred Bottom line, if you feel comfortable using a bov, and uncomfortable not using one - then use one. Its a common mod to have. As the thread asks, "aftermarket bov, performance or wank" well I just cant see the evidence to say its a performance mod. I have seen them cause dramas though - actual, real life, quantifyable dramas.

gee runn3r, you are really up on your bov info, now arent you?

If you say show me a warrant, be prepared for he cop to drop your strides and bend you over - being a smart ass has never, that I know of, helped anyone. If you think they unfairly defected you, or treated you in any way, speak to a lawyer - thats my advice anyways. Really, if you are doing the wrong thing, and get caught, wear it

lets talk 1989 and nissan, cefiro, rb20det, NO bov - last year the model was run, R32 gtst rb20det plus bov - first year the model was run. Probably around then that emissions became a focus point?

They did, for around 10 years, THE MOST brilliant mechanical engineering minds in the world worked on them - yet no BOV - that is my point, but hey, its impossible to argue with the 'street racer' thoery...

Holset/Allied Signal, aka Garrett, did you see the garrett comment on bovs posted earlier? obviously (understandably) they are at the cutting edge of turbo technology. interesting, seen photos of indi cars, using what 'looks' like standard tial wastegates - they do have pop off valves, to limit boost, but not bovs. I just cant get passed the fact that cutting edge, such as indi cars, where technology is tested and refined, yet no bov, and they (garrett) cant say there is a need for one - vs ( as runn3r points out ) 'street racers' and bov companies who swear they are essential for optimum performance and reliability. Where, for gods sake is the evidence?

rediculous? it proves a point, but maybe you cant see that, fair enough. So you base your performance beliefes on 'street racers', nice, enjoy your bov, and your neons. So how many performance build ups have you done? hmm, fark all I guess. And you will probably never have one if you base your theories on 'street racers' nice move. Roy, its interesting, some do use bovs, some dont - perhaps sponsorship has something to do with it? Proven perfromance, NO, there is no proof - but many examples where turbos, and performance dont seem to suffer witout one. Many examples of manufacturers that remove bovs on their performance, dedicated track cars.

Why would they use a 30 kg turbo, if one half the wieght with a bov would do the job? I dont see how its relevant to what works best.

your weak

yes, they do, its called a warranty Lemans, a compromise of reliability? a 24 hour race designed to push cars to their limits of reliability isnt about reliability? Where is the reliability being compromised? Its only compromised when they dont finish.

oh, just had to add this one:

psybic, some more food for thought: "You have to remember there were the best minds in the world work on these systems in F1 for over 10 years and in that time no one ever though to fit the BOV for all of its performance and reliability benefits." here is another one from Garrett "Garrett do not necessarily have a stand on BOVs, personally I have not seen an issue with a turbo due to not having a blow off valve but they seem to be a good device" Pretty vague, no evidence of failure - and that is from the manufacturer of the turbos - when they have to give warranty, wouldnt they add ANY clause they could to give them an excuse not to have to pay a claim? make it conditional that if a turbo fails without bov fitted that its not their responsibility - big company, specialise in turbos and spend many millions on developement. Just doesnt add up. I had a friend who fitted a turbosmart bov, it started lifting under boost, had to be shimmed up, still kept lifting, he just counldnt stop it from lifting under boost. This causes turbo overspeeding, how long does for example the R33 stock turbo last when you start overpeeding it? It would hardly add to its reliability. So who is it that is pushing the great virtues of a BOV? The manufacturers of the bovs think they are important, yet where is their conclusive testing or evidence - they dont have any. To me, it seems like the arguement for bovs is greatly comprised of urban legend or myth, perpetuated by the manufacturers of bovs and the likes of hot 4s magazine - with very little supporting evidence.

No that is in the S13 180sx - at least it was when I asked him about a year ago. Bai's road car (an S15) I think is currently running a T518Z

Yes, I did. Let me ask, did you read the rest of this thread, in its entirety? did you check out the link to the discussion on the rotor forums? if you did, I think you would find that the little I did quote isnt the be all and end all. BUT, in context of reliability, yes, a indi car is needing reliability far, far more so than a street car. And if you are trying to say a turbo timer increases reliability? well, I could suggest it is only a convenience, for those that dont want to cool their car down adequately before turnig off. Argueably, they have a negative effect, as if you idle a car to cool it down, your water temps will go up, even though the oil temps go down MUCH better if you drive conservatively to allow things to cool down, rather than idling. Especially if you have been thrashing - like a cool down lap (sorry for the racing analgy, but race cars do require reliability as much as performance) If a turbo timer increased reliability, why dont they have them????

Some nice features, I wonder how much more than the standard e-manage this one will cost.

What does turbo timers have to do with BOVs???? Do you really think your car, with its bov, will be able to maintain anywhere near the loads maintained by an indi car or an F1? think again. If in the pinicle of racing where RELIABILITY and PERFROMANCE are paramount, with cars that make massive power - they choose not to fit one, but a street car, with alot less power, and no where near the levels of reliability has one - and thats relevant how? (try punting your car around an F1 track and see how long it lasts) I really fail to see where you are coming from here.