omg

Up Garage is pretty awful for anything except wheels IMO, all nicely set out but the prices are way to high for secondhand gear. The Machida shop does have the bonus of being 50 metres from Tomei though. Depending on what you want Hasegawa is one of the better secondhand places in Tokyo. Light on electronic stuff but fairly well stocked with everything else; turbos, diffs, coilovers etc.

I travel to Japan a fair bit and by far the best thing to do is change your aussie into yen in australia, the ANZ consistantly has the best rates. Generally I plan to use the credit card for hotels and cash for everything else, it's not unusual at all that between a couple of us we'll head over with 15-20k AUD in folding stuff. The using USD thing isn't as silly as it sounds, it all comes down to how commonly used the currency is and where the balance of trade is so to speak. For example there are a lot more japanese visitors to aus than there are australians going to japan so every bank/currency dealer is sitting on a huge stack of yen which does nothing for them until it's physically (and expensively) shipped back to japan. As a result if you're buying yen in australia you'll pay about a 2% margin whereas if you're selling yen you'll pay around 12%. For USD it's less than 1% each way. Obviously if you're travelling from japan to aus you're _much_ better off bringing USD, not AUD. Going to Japan however you are better going straight to Yen as the rates reflect the surplus of Yen the locals are holding. Re getting cash on cards, generally we don't bother but the citibanks are definately the best way to go. You can get a list of the citibank atms from the global visa site, it's a good idea to know where a few are (we generally use the ones next to NIssan Gallery in Ginza, in the Tcat terminal and over in shinjuku)

"I don't mind a respectful discussion arguing the points. But when it degenerates into a challenge to support points of view with facts, that's when I get a little pushy as my life revolves around turning facts (data) into information on how to make cars go faster. " Neither do I, however when you make a series of incorrect and inflammatory remarks you should expect to be called on them. If you don't want someone to stand up and say "hey, thats not correct, back that up" then I suggest you are a little more careful with what you say. Hell, if you had've simply admitted that you exagrerated things somewhat the thread would've taken a very different course. "I can hear omg, now "you used the most expensive stuff just to support your argument" + "you don't need titanium valves, stainless would have been OK" + "nothing wrong with the standard stuff, just the solids would have been enough" etc etc" Nah, for 9000rpm I'd be doing similar stuff. I'd be using parts like the Tomei solid pivots rather than Jun (half the price) though. 9000rpm certainly isn't needed for any of the applications that have been discussed in this thread but again, I'll even let that one slide. What you have clearly failed to do however is fix any "inherrant problems". You've fixed a bunch of stuff which needs to be changed in any valvetrain being built for high revs and comparing this with the CA and RB the only part you wouldn't need on them is the rocker arms. The really funny thing is, there are a couple more changes I'd be making (for all three engines btw), I'm quite surprised you didn't include those "Compare this to a Crower forged crank for CA18 with 88 mm stroke (AKA CA20) at $1,870. When you use this crank with 85 mm pistons (2mm oversize) you end up at 1998 cc's. A solid lifter conversion for the CA (to make things equal with the solids in the SR) is $245" I can't see any good reason to include the new buckets in the price here as the CA still wouldn't rev anywhere near the SR speced above and, we're talking straight stroker kit here. I would be inclined to include rods as well as your unpriced pistons in the stroker kit though, I'd probably be getting things like piston rings, pins, bearings etc as well. Hmm, how do those 2mm oversive pistons go fitting into the standard bore? Would there be a bit of engineering work involved? Or were you just hoping that no-one here actually knows how an internal combustion engine is built? What does irk me about your behaviour is that you've been consistantly deceptive in all your replies then put on the poor me I'm being nice and the nasty SR guy is rude routine. Your deception is at a point where it's way beyond simple mistakes, you're simply a barefaced liar and you bloody well know it. I won't get into the rest of the stuff as that strays into comparing SR's with the RB, something I'm not going to get into, particularly on a skyline forum and particularly with someone like you. You've been caught out lying but in the same breath as putting on you're "I'm a nice guy act" you add a new chapter to your lies. Maybe in you quest to save the world from urban myths you could start with what parts are the bare minimum for a stroker kit.

"As for selectively plucking numbers, excuse me! The discussion until your tactlessness (your words, not mine) appeared, was pertaining to the often held misconception that SR20DET's have more torque than RB20DET's and SR20DE's have more torque than RB20DE's. And that this was due to some inherent design advantage in the SR20's favour. I merely quoted torque outputs that disproved that. The fact that there are other torque (higher) outputs around proves my point, that Nissan's tuning makes far more difference than any inherent design advantage" Actually thats not quite true is it, well before I made any statements on the thread you had come up with your absurd statements like an SR would require such extensive work to the valvetrain that a stroker kit for a CA would be cheaper (you keep promising us some factual basis for this, we keep waiting), the fact that with pistons and rods the SR would stroll it in comfortably under the standard rev limit seems to have completely slipped your mind. You then followed this up with some gross distortions of fact regarding torque numbers. With all your comments about how you have "facts" to back up what you've seem to be very tardy in coming up with them "Bottom line, the more you quote differing torque numbers, the more you support my argument" lol, of course, when you use torque numbers it shows the RB20DE has more torque than the SR20DE but when it's shown to you that there are a string of SR20DE's making considerably more torque (not a little more, a shedload more) somehow they don't matter any more "When I have an opinion I like to quote others, just so it is not misconstrued as being uniquely my opinion. This is from Mike Kojima..." Oh, this is too precious, you quote one sentence out of ontext from an article near 17,000 words long and expect it to mean something? You've completely ignored what has been said in this thread and completely ignored what the author of the quote himself about the HLA's. Hell, I'll have a go at the quote game, this one from Tomei's site "Although hydraulic lifter that is used in stock engines of RB20, VG30 or CA18 are contributed in making it maintenance free, it be comes the hindrance of high-speed rotation interns of tuning the engine. Also, since hydraulic lifter cannot adjust its height, it is impossible to use high lift camshaft. Accordingly, the tuning range and performance of RB20, VG30 and CA18 were restricted by H-lifter" Oh no, don't tell me that just as HLA's cause a problem in revving an SR beyond 7500rpm that they also might cause a problem in valvetrains using an HLA in bucket setup? Now, does this mean the problem is with the bucket or the HLA within it? And if the problem is with the HLA, what makes you turnaround and state that on an SR the HLA isn't a problem but instead blame the rocker arm design? And just for kicks, how about we pick a nice high revving motor like an F1 engine, which ones use rocker arms and which ones use a cam on bucket? Fact is, when it comes to revving the RB, CA or SR the actual "problem" areas in the valvetrain are the same for all, the springs and the HLA. Fact is that if greater revs are required the parts requiring modification are basically the same and cost around the same (and a hell of a lot less than a CA stroker). And finally, fact is none of those engines are going to have a hell of a lot of difficulty hitting the 300 rwkw mark with their stock rev limits but if some extra revs are required it is a cheap fix for all. My only agenda is to give honest information to someone about to spend a significant amount of money, what's yours Sydneykid.

Let me get this straight, quite apart from quoting incorrect torque numbers for the aus model, quite apart from the way you have selectively plucked numbers for your comparisons your contention is that for an SR20DET with aftermarket pistons and rods to make 300kw atw reliably you will have to spend more than the cost of a 2.0 CA stroker on the valvetrain? Yeah, you've got an agenda whether you'll admit it or not.

Honestly Sydneykid, buggered if I know if you'd change it but based on my impression of you from this thread where even you have to admit you've played very fast and loose with the truth I have very little faith in your word. Harsh? probably but all I've got is what I see on front of me. I should have a brochure at home somewhere, I know where the japanese one is but most of my other stuff is still sitting in boxes from a not so recent move. But no, it didn't lose any torque, if anything it gained a bit however Nissan states the torque and power numbers were the same. RBSileighty - yep, I've been particularly tactless, don't disagree with you there. However it's not anything to do with disagreeing with him, more trusting that he is indeed presenting an honest opinion free of any agenda.

Sure, attached is a scanned image of the brochure for the australian delivered 200sx. You'll have to excuse me but I'd consider this somewhat more reliable in reflecting what Nissan claimed as the torque output than raw text posted to a message board. Hell, maybe what you've got is wrong and you haven't just changed it in an attempt to bolster a failing argument however what I can't understand is how you've never noticed the torque figure for a car which was sold in australia for about 8 years. You being an expert on the engine and all that Brochure How are you going writing up that list of parts needed for the valvetrain which would cost more than a stroker kit?

"I posted 179 nm, that's correct, even you admit that a standard version of the SR20DE makes 179 nm. So I am right, it's a fact and I have distorted nothing." In isolation it might be justifiable but when you pluck the lowest number for one engine and the highest for another, don't mention that there are different versions available and use that as a basis of comparison you have distorted the facts. "I posted 256 nm for the S14 and S15 Australian delivered, I checked the recognition papers from Nissan and guess what I'm right again." The number you are looking for is 265 so I'd say either you're lying about checking or you're dyslexic. Normally I'd suggest a trip to the doctor but I suspect in this case that won't be required at all "It is widely known that the rockers arms on SR20's are a serious handicap, are you denying that?" It appears to be widely known amognst people who drive skylines that the rocker arms are an issue, amognst people who build and drive SR's it's widely known that it's the hydraulic lash adjuster that is the problem. Maybe you could provide the list of parts required by the SR to allow it to rev which cost more than a stroker kit for the CA? Yeah, farcical indeed. "Next time you want to call someone's post "farcical" I suggest you line up your facts, because I never post anything I can't back up." I'm comfortable with my facts, that you are also comfortable with yours I suspect is more a reflection on your character than anything to do with the facts at hand. Like I've said, I've no desire to get into an SR vs RB war on a skyline forum (or any forum for that matter) as it serves no real purpose but to create divisions between car enthusiasts. I'm sure you know your RB's Sydneykid but based on what you've posted in this thread you know piss all about SR's.

Feh, when people start using language like "spindly rocker arms" and "inherrant flaws" in the valvetrain you know the discussion is going to have very little technical information and consist mostly of recyling tired old myths. Add to that the fact that this is a Skyline board so any RB/SR discussion will be seen as an attack it really is a waste of time going into any detail. I'm always happy to talk engines and answer questions about the SR but with the direction this thread has taken already I reckon it's best left to die.

Nah, your lack of understanding about the very basics of SR's renders it pretty much useless. The fact you can't even get basic engine specs correct (eg, nissan claimed 265Nm for the local DET and the torque numbers for the SR20DE range from the 179Nm in the pulsar out to 213Nm for the hottest of the factory engines) reduces the thread to such a farcical level that there isn't much point discussing the more technical aspects of the engine. I'm sure you know your RB's but you clearly are utterly clueless when it comes to SR's. It could be an interesting discussion but the way you distort the facts so completely makes it an utter waste of time. To answer the original poster, the quickest S15 in the country running an unopened engine (rocker cover never removed) and a completely standard turbo is in the high 11's. Food for thought I guess.

Just wondering if anyone has the specs for the intergrated proportioning valves in the master cylinders in the various skylines. In particular I'm looking for details on the split point and the reducing ratio (assuming the skylines reduce pressure to the rears)