Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Something's been bugging me for a while. I have a stock ECR33 LSD (center) at my shed which is from a R200 Casing. I know it's a longshot to ask, but will it fit into this R31 R200 Longnose Diff Case? I think the answer is no right?

Edited by teng
I think my diff is open as well. Will need a LSD option fitted when my project starts. Hard to find one nowadays. Don't know if mine's 25 or 28 spline axle's. Maybe the Australian Silhouette version will fit. I heard it has 28 spline axles.

Have you got the Borg Warner (aus) or H190 (import)?

I think centers are only interchangeable withing the same length diffs

The engine cover looks like all our RB30 motors, i.e. single cam RB Motor (not a CA). All RB Engined cars in Australia (both GM Holden and Nissan) were EFI (i.e. RB30E).

The Interior shots look like a Series 1 R31 Skyline.

Almost all R31s in Australia had solid (live) rear axle. Only the HR31 (i.e. rare 2 door) had Independant Rear Suspension.

I think i already saw it answered, but there were carby RB30's which are from the Nissan Patrols

Interior shot is standard import interior. Import Seats + trim, double din, cable driven cluster, complete black dash just to name a few

All Australian R31's had a 'solid' borgwarner rear axle. Most imports had IRS although not all, there were some with a H180/H190 solid rear axle, specifically on the lower spec cars and the Passage wagons.

Mind you, there is only one Aussie Skyline, it's a bit of a pig except for the Gibson cars S1 & S2 GTS's compared to previous and later models.

SVD, not gibson :D

I think my diff is open as well. Will need a LSD option fitted when my project starts. Hard to find one nowadays. Don't know if mine's 25 or 28 spline axle's. Maybe the Australian Silhouette version will fit. I heard it has 28 spline axles.

If you have a solid rear axle it will be either 25 or 28 spline. In australia ALL R31 skylines had 28 spline, and the R31 pintara had 25 spline axles (these were CA20 powered)

Something's been bugging me for a while. I have a stock ECR33 LSD (center) at my shed which is from a R200 Casing. I know it's a longshot to ask, but will it fit into this R31 R200 Longnose Diff Case? I think the answer is no right?

No, R33 are Short nose R200's. R31's have long nose the gearsets between the two which i had were not interchangable (edit: wrote short twice)

Edited by shanet

SVD was not owned by gibson motorsport. They built the original prototype SVD cars (exa GP, visous vectors, GTS R31's) for Fred Gibson

SVD was started by Paul Beringer who was the enginer and designer and Howard Marsden who was product development/Nissan motor sport

I might be wrong, but I have been led to believe that Gibson Motorsport were the builders of both the R31 GTS vehicles that carried SVD decals.

If this is correct your being pedantic, splitting hairs so to speak.

D

All R31's started out life as standard GX's off the production line in Clayton, they were then shipped off to Nissan SVD in Dandenong where they were then hand produced to be the GTS's we know.

Howard employed Fred Gibson to look after Nissan Motorsport. He ended up buying it out for which was known as Gibson Motorsport. Fred was over in Japan a lot and learned about what they had been doing with the engines over there. Some of his input went towards ideas for the GTS's and it was up to Paul and Howard to design the car to comply with the Australian Rules at the time.

Out of all the people i work with now, we are the Nissan Brains trust. It is guarantee'd we know more about Nissan, than Nissan. hahaha

(We have ex-Nissan employees working here) + we are part of the Nissan Historic race team. :rolleyes:

lol well i meant to write all GTS2's started out as gx / gxe and silo as GTS1. as per Nissan Master file database

How did i know you were going to say that haha

ahhh poor gts1's the forgotten GTS

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...