Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My mate has asked me this question a fair few times and i really don't know the answer,

He wants to know if he buys a turboed R33 can he de-turbo it without having any problems,and if so what would he need in part wise, i know this is a very weird question as most people want to turbo there car, but with these new p plate rules i'm sure this question will get asked more and more...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/252729-removing-a-turbo/
Share on other sites

The amount of times this question is asked makes me wanna shoot the person who posts it every time.

The VIN number of the car states that it IS a turbo.

If you remove the turbo the VIN will still say its a turbo.

You are still driving an illegal car even though it has the turbo rmoved.

Simple as that.

The amount of times this question is asked makes me wanna shoot the person who posts it every time.

The VIN number of the car states that it IS a turbo.

If you remove the turbo the VIN will still say its a turbo.

You are still driving an illegal car even though it has the turbo rmoved.

Simple as that.

Thanks mate thats all i needed to know!!

If he can handle driving a low compression N/A for so long... it will be like turbo lag without the boost and quite humiliating when your car struggles to get of the line ;)

As been mentioned before, depends how they classify the car even without a turbo, and also most State's rules are something along the lines of "a vehicle that has had its performance modified" which could really mean having a turbo removed technically...

For the cost of de-turboing a car now, and then reverting it back later (lets not forget about the way the ECU is probably going to see the car without a turbo...) he'd be better off buying a N/A now and doing the bolt-on turbo conversion later, or engine swap later, or change the car later.

If he wants to drive an even slower skyline around, he might as well by an econobox till he's on his open licence unless he absolutely must have a Skyline purely for the looks and status.

On another note though, if one was to do the turbo removal...how much of a difference would it make if the car was run with a more restrictive exhaust?

My reasoning behind this question is that if too large an exhaust on an N/A Skyline results in less power down low, but more top end power due to decreased volumetric efficiency...would there be any "significant" difference running a smaller restrictive diameter exhaust on a low compression N/A Skyline? At least to the point where it became bearable to drive? What difference would this make on wear n tear on the engine and fuel economy? Will the ECU be able to self learn the new set up?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...