Scooby

I've never understood how a loose ex wheel can damage an engine. Sure there will be bits flying everywhere but how do the bits get to the other/intake side of the turbo where they can get into the engine? I've heard this a few times but don't see how it could physically happen. Cheers

Guys; I've read on here that no 6 (rear) cylinder can run lean on RB26s due to the design of the intake plenum. Does anyone know under what circumstances this becomes a real problem? Can this be rectified by extrude honing or some other method? Cheers

i agree they are good at what they do. are you dynoing it before and after just to see the difference?

Yeehah that'd be me

Let us know how you go Michael.

Guys; in the past I've known of many NA cars, particularly early worked cast iron V8s, that have gained economy, power and driveability by changing to a hi flow design water pump and a de-aeration tank. all of this is designed to produce more uniform and effective cooling in the block front to rear by removing air trapped in the water jacket. i've experienced a big difference myself in a big block chrysler and although the car ran at the same measured temp as before (and never ran hot in the first place) it ran much better. i wouldn't believe it if i hadn't witnessed it myself. the n1 water pump for the RB26 has a plate behind the impeller and different shape fins, both of which were a characteristic of the hi flow pumps that i saw used previously. the japs are well known for over engineering cooling systems but the V8s didn't have an engine temp prob either, so i wondered if maybe there was a power gain to be had by using the N1, however slight. Regards

ecl; be wary. 1-2 inches is a lot to lower the car, particularly if it's only at one end, and will affect the balance. you will shift the weight rearward and likely create an understeerer that you probably won't be happy with. you'll also affect braking as there will be less weight transferred to the front. scary. that's why, if you read various threads by Sydneykid and others, you'll see cars are properly lowered at both ends unless you really know what you're doing are comfortable lowering one end only to achieve a desired affect.

ecl; be wary. 1-2 inches is a lot to lower the car and will affect the balance. you will shift the weight rearward and likely create an understeerer that you probably won't be happy with. you'll also affect braking as there will be less weight transferred to the front. scary. that's why, if you read various threads by Sydneykid and others, you'll see cars are properly lowered at both ends.

Pedders....cringe.....

why do you need a suit to be a pole dancer at the Blue Oyster bar? what job did you say again?

If it's 'fall to the front', shouldn't that be 'the sill behind the front wheel should be 10mm higher than the sill in front of the wheel'. I might be missing something though...

Thanks Shan, I'll go there. Reason I'm asking is because I've seen an instrument cluster for sale and it says 'only suitable for later series R32', I'm thinking they must be referring to the clutch change. Cheers

SK; Bewdy, thank you. Warp; ...If you have to ask the question, you have never driven a 4WD road car for any length of time... Interesting assumption / observation you make. I own a GTR (2 years) and an RS Liberty (5 years). I also recognise I don't know everything and that it pays to investigate those things many of us simply take for granted, as sometimes they turn out to be misconceptions. As you know the Laser you cite and my RS have very different 4wd systems to the GTR and hence my questions. We're lucky to have someone like SK around to get straight answers from. In this case what he has written confirmed what I thought. Regards Mark

Any ideas guys? Thanks in advance.

So... Did Julian Edgar get it wrong? Is 4wd a waste on a street GTR where tyres are unlikely to go off, is it better to ditch the 4 wd and benefit from the weight loss if you're not racing?

I'd be raising this with ebay. They seem pretty touchy about dodgy sellers and rightly so.

Thanks SK, that was great. Julian E wrote that the system was designed to reduce front drive when lateral/cornering force was felt by the g sensors, whereas you've said that the ATTESSA kicks in when the rears display slip in comparison to the front...such as that encountered when cornering. I'd have thought that in a power oversteer situation while cornering you'd want more not less front wd (but not enough to understeer of course). Mine certainly feels like it pulls from the front when it gets taily. Did he get it wrong? Do you think that the 4wd system on the GTR is a bit of a waste of time for the street? Cheers

Thanks SK, that was great. Julian E wrote that the system was designed to reduce front drive when lateral/cornering force was felt by the g sensors, whereas you've said that the ATTESSA kicks in when the rears displaying slip in comparison to the front...such as that encountered when cornering. I'd have thought that in a power oversteer situation while cornering you'd want more not less front wd (but not enough to understeer of course). Mine certainly feels like it pulls from the front when it gets taily. Did he get that wrong? Do you think that the 4wd system on the GTR is a bit of a waste of time for the street? Cheers

Thanks Phantom, I left that out, I was was planning on going down the route of getting a RIPS one from NZ. Regards

agreed, extended wastegate pipes are the best if you are going to fit dumps. i was quoted about $1k from Autobarn for these Trust types. given that they include an engine pipe you can't beat the value. the CES ones are also worth looking at, although they are more expensive their extended waste gate types have an expansion chamber off the turbo which is as i understand it better again. they also make HKS style short dumps and quote dyno figures for them on a GTR, they are cheaper than HKS and i suspect just as good as anything else in that style.

i think you should benefit from them but do a search on dump pipes, there's been a bit of discussion on their merits. i think it was 'merli' who had done quite a bit of development work on his gtr engine and was adamant that they weren't needed. there are threads on this subject but no one could provide an indication of back to back gain. at that price however it'd be worth it just for the weight loss. make sure they are HKS, there's a lot of copies around.

Thanks SK. Can I clarify some issues then please?; the WRX and GTR are both acknowledged as quick 4wd cars but have significantly different 4wd operations. what do you see as the rationale behind each system and their pros and cons? is the GTR system designed for the track more so than the street? is 4wd worth retaining in a GTR if it's a fast street car that doesn't see the track? why is it the GTR system cuts front wd when lateral g forces are experienced (unless JE got it wrong). i'd have thought that on a road car the opposite would be desirable, or at least partial permanent 4wd as in the Holden Coupe 4. Cheers

Fine words from a bloke that got spotted in LYCRA! 'What's that shattering noise...quick, get the glazier over to Jayce's glasshouse and for heavens sake confiscate those rocks he keep chucking.'

Does anyone know if this can be done on the car? A faint squealing noise comes from the booster area through the last part of the pedal travel the first time I apply it hard after a while (doesn't have to be hard enough to trigger ABS) but doesn't do it on subsequent applications. I'm wondering if there's a leak in the diaphragm but don't know how to test this. All of the lines / one way valves/ connections etc are good. Thanks for any help.

How about a permanent but less pigish understeering ratio like the Coupe 4? I've never fully understood the whole 4wd intention with the GTR - the mechanics are easy but the implementation seems quirky. Am I right in assuming that while it might be great for the track it's not great for the road? I've read the famous Autospeed article on their torque splitter etc but then an ex-GMS guy (was it you SK?) Julian E spoke to who said that the idea was to reduce front wheel drive when lateral g forces were experienced??? which took him by surprise also as he thought, understandably, that it'd be the reverse. Does the fact that R33s and 34s have progressively earlier fwd actuation suggests that Nissan has made its later ATTESSA setups more road oriented? Or is it just that technology has allowed them to do what they'd have done with the R32 if they could. I understand some people tighten up the clutch packs in the R32 transfer case to provide more fwd but that's only half the equation; the other is the speed at which it actuates. If we could only convert our R32s to later ATTESSA systems... SK can you shed any light on this please? Cheers