Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I have currently got an R32 GT-R on the way from Japan and I received photos of it sitting at the port.

One thing that worried me is that the car appears to have very little fuel in it. Pictured below:

2ikbd3c.jpg

I'm just wondering, if cars are this low on fuel do they actually fill them up enough to continue driving them or do they just decide to let it run out and then move it with a forklift? Really worried about the sills and rails being damaged as I have heard that they arent that careful when it comes to those kind of things :(

Thanks guys.

  • Like 1

I know when I imported my boat from America, it had about 150 ltrs of fuel (half tank) customs did not like that and almost got a fine, got let off because it was my 1st import.

Because it's only needs a small amount, just to drive off n on and to yard max 4 to 5 km depending on location.....

But that'was my boat hope it helps.

Never imported a car, I hope I will in a few years.

Let us know how your experience went.

Edited by pol1on1

Personally, I'd expect it to be shipped with minimal fuel.

I seriously hope they don't use a forklift at either end like they used to back when.

I'm sure during your search locally (Aus) you would not have seen many without marks on the sills or rails.

Speak with your importer.

Damn it looks so clean. Congrats.

Edited by Sinista32
My r34's low fuel light was on after the auction & before it was driven on the boat .And it was still on when i picked it up from compliance 10 weeks later.post-93096-0-64185700-1345286175_thumb.jpg

My r34's low fuel light was on after the auction & before it was driven on the boat .And it was still on when i picked it up from compliance 10 weeks later.

Compliance workshop might have put some in some in. I have jusr heard that they don't do that at the port.

Just picked up a V36. Compliance put in 10L in, enough for me to drive to a fuel station and put in a full tank.

Picked up 2 Evo's last year. Both did not have any put in but still had fuel light on and I had to limp 2-3km to fill up.

I think that's how it normally is?

Not so much worried about compliance. It's more when it's at the port. I have heard they use forklifts to move them around.

Yes forklifts smash the chassis rail like pancakes , then car is worthless , i also had seats , steering wheels , gear knobs and floor mats all swapped over for hacked up ones during storage/shipping .

Edited by NISSAN GTR

Yes forklifts smash the chassis rail like pancakes , then car is worthless , i also had seats , steering wheels , gear knobs and floor mats all swapped over for hacked up ones during storage/shipping .

Or you could get the rails repaired.

My had something sharp used to take the badges @port in Aust, metal valve caps removed, rear boot clips taken. But that was in 2004. I'm sure the wharfies are much different now.......

Mine was imported late last year with zero fuel but the car only did 4km between the pre-purchase inspection and me picking it up from compliance. No damage to rails or anything but i did lose the contents of the glovebox somewhere along the line!

From my experience with equipment found at wharf facilities, their forks would do no damage to chassis rails.

A fork that can hump a 20t container is big gear with massive tynes that offer a huge area to spread the load, far greater than say, a tyre changing shop's air operated jacking equipment.

But once the car is shipped off to a road transport company, the size of the fork drops dramatically and these are the machines that might damage rails. (especially if the rails were suspect to start with)

Car haulage companies aren't keen on cars like Skylines which don't have the front bar clearance to clamber up their ramps so they often get forked onto the single vehicle spot above the cab.

You can be lucky, your car may still have the wedges in the front coils.

These raise the car's front eliminating problems for the drivers shuffling vehicles to/from the ship.

  • Like 2

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...