Educated Guess At The Final Tune Results

[Nismo 3.2ish]

What spring rates did you get Peter? I asked for 10/7 in my car and Josh said it's not recommended but I wanted them in that anyway LOL

I told MCA that the roads up here are pretty bad, potholes etc, he said, he would go for the comfort orientated ones, but should still handle nice on the road. The little I drove , I did not see much differnce from the GTR set up, but have not done much driving.

Trouble is I stuffed my left shoulder Rotator Cuff just before I got them installed, so driving the R has been a bitch and changing gears a nightmare, so I really have not had much of a chance to give the car a bit of splat but maybe tomorrow I will give it a bit of stick and see how it feels. The Auto Tiida Rules

The tune is being looked at next week, bit of a dead spot at around 5k rpm then gets going again. Could be the boost controller in the ECU, should be easily fixed.

The MCA X-Cs are pretty

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

They are a solid bit of kit, I've got the X-R as my car mainly sees the track rather than the road.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Looking forward to having a run through the hills ASAP, should be fun

[Dose Pipe Sutututu]

play around with the dampers...

set them like 2/12 and keep adding till they stop getting bouncy, I find with my overly stiff springs, 5/12 front and 7/12 rear dampers works a treat for street use.. on the track I click them to about 8 front and 10 rear

[Nismo 3.2ish]

play around with the dampers...

set them like 2/12 and keep adding till they stop getting bouncy, I find with my overly stiff springs, 5/12 front and 7/12 rear dampers works a treat for street use.. on the track I click them to about 8 front and 10 rear

Thanks for the advice, should be able to give it a run next weekend and when I am down with Jez I will see what he thinks.

The small amount of driving I have done since they were installed, they felt OK.

I thought they were set up to drop in without any adjusting, maybe they dropped it down a bit and was a little low. Wanted to keep the same ride height as I have a bit of trouble coming into the driveway, had to take the 350GT in on an 45 degree angle

[Scooby]

play around with the dampers...

He does enough fiddling as it is

[Nismo 3.2ish]

He does enough fiddling as it is

Be nice

[Nismo 3.2ish]

On 15/03/2016 at 5:24 PM, XGTRX said:

Sorry to hear you got dealt a crap hand with the build Pete. Bloody piss poor that it came down to a assembly error rather than an easy component failure and what is more piss poor is the fact they avoided making it right. Just confirms there are c%nts in this world, that's all.

Good luck with getting remunerated what you are owed plus I hope you also get extra compensation for the crap you have had to go through.

My gut feeling is he wont let it go for much longer when he knows you are serious about going all the way to get a fair outcome.

I am also wrapped you are happy with the way it turned out, may you have many thousands kilometres of trouble free driving enjoyment.

Now just fkn drive the thing.

                                            Maybe I have some advice for the younger players , well I will try

I went to the NCAT tribunal on Monday to try and get paid back for some of the repairs I had to have done to find and fix the water loss problem.

The hearing went for 3 hours ish and in the end I was awarded a payment from the builder and a win has to be good

The problem with these judgements, they have to follow their own guidelines. But the 2 companies that did the work did what they considered the correct way to build this type of RB3.2 build and did what they considered necessary to repair the motor and ensure it would be reliable .

Here are a few of the main things they did that I could not be reimbursed for as they were not jobs done by the original builder or some parts could have been reused and I cannot get a better motor out of fixing a mistake by someone else and I found this to be a fair statement. But the parts and repair  work done was thought to be necessary to make the motor 100% and I agreed

Do not forget, water has been in the motor for months and had gone back to the builder to be fixed 3 times before I had enough and went elsewhere to find the problem.

Chemical wash the engine

Partial grout fill engine block

Hone Bores

Polish crankshaft

Line hone main bearing tunnel

Mill block and head faces

Drill block and head for locating dowels

Drill and tap block to relocate timing tensioner, timing belt and extra tensioner

New piston ring set

New race main and rod bearings

New head gasket

Etc etc

The tribunal said I had to give the original builder the motor to fix as he could do it a lot cheaper in their own workshop and you cannot argue with that.

I had told the builder where the car was and I thought it was then up to them to contact the shop that had located the leaking problem. He was not contacted.

Later when I had decided to have the work done, I was told by the original builder that as far as they were concerned they found and fixed the leaking top radiator hose. I also gave them the information as the problem was found and received no reply, so I had the motor sent to a motor building shop to have the job finished and I paid for it.

I felt I had no other option but to have the work done and take the chance it could be proven when and how the problem occurred, as it turned out I could and did

But for anyone that has a problem with their car and the shop that did the work tells you it is not their problem, I would strongly suggest they at least follow a few steps below.

1. Give the builder a chance to do the work and only take it to someone else when they give you something in black and white stating that they will not take responsibility for the problem. Emails and texts  are good as evidence as they give the time and date they were sent.

2. Document everything and keep all pertinent info, also keep them in order. Phone calls are not much good, as it is he said, they said and useless, unless it proves you had spoken to them on particular dates.

3. Before you allow another shop to do the work, give the original shop a last chance to take the car back and fix it, if they refuse there is not much else you can do but have your car fixed but at least you have evidence that you gave the original shop the opportunity to change their mind. 

4. If you cannot afford to make your motor better or have work done to ensure the build is as it should have been, only get the work done that brings the car back to how it was when the original job was done or you will pay for anyother work they do and at the cost the original builder could fix it for.I think this stinks if you have no other options to have the car fixed.

In my case, NCAT told me that some of the work carried out was not 100% necessary, but in the shops doing the rebuild minds, it was absolutely necessary for the motors longevity .

So it cost me much more than I was paid for the repairs, but my motor is much better and I am happy to know everything is as it should have been in the first place

THE END!

PS, not yet , might swap the PT6266 Gen 2 for the EFR8374, the results from these turbos are too strong to ignore , response YEAH!

THE END!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shoota_77]

Glad you got something back Peter.  All of it would have been nice but it would be pretty rare that ever happens.

At the very least you would hope said workshop will learn from the absolute balls up they made of not just the work but their shitty follow up and acceptance of what went wrong.  Nothing but good times from here on!

[Nismo 3.2ish]

1 hour ago, Shoota_77 said:

Glad you got something back Peter.  All of it would have been nice but it would be pretty rare that ever happens.

At the very least you would hope said workshop will earn from the absolute balls up they made of not just the work but their shitty follow up and acceptance of what went wrong.  Nothing but good times from here on!

Yeah mate , all good

Thinking about it, I guess I could have shortened it up a bit.

IF YOU GET A SHITTY JOB DONE AND IT FS up, YOU CAN ONLY CLAIM TO DO A SIMILAR SHITTY JOB TO GET IT BACK TO HOW IT WAS , MINUS THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM

[tridentt150v]

Phew..................

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Phew ?

[Piggaz]

Good to see you got something back, Petey! 

[Nismo 3.2ish]

1 hour ago, Piggaz said:

Good to see you got something back, Petey! 

Been a long drawn out process, but at least it is over and got a couple of $s back

[Duncan]

Thanks for closing the loop, and good advice on how to deal with a similar issue.

 

Given that the tribunal has ruled on this issue, who was the workshop that did the faulty work?

[Piggaz]

CRD.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Thanks for closing the loop, and good advice on how to deal with a similar issue.

 

Given that the tribunal has ruled on this issue, who was the workshop that did the faulty work?

I was going to ask Prank before I answered you Duncan but the Pig jumped in, so yes!

It was 17 months of bullshit and I would advise anyone to think long and hard before using any shop without them having some sort of insurance against Farked up jobs, because they will do and say anything to weasel out of their obligations.

I fronted up by myself and builder had a mechanical engineer that did a report on a motor he had never seen and from what he said , knew absolutely nothing about them, I will give you just a few examples from my report on the engineers Report, this is from the motor builder that did the work for me to repair the water loss problem.

"The writer" is a "Mechanical Engineer" and these are the answers to his assumptions in his report. He must have been schooled by the builder as he had never set eyes on my car or motor  , It is a bit long, there is more , but this will give you some idea, I think?

6.1 Coolant level measurement
"The writer" uses information from an UNNAMED MITSUBISHI vehicle on how to check the coolant level, no where
does it state that the Mitsubishi System is the same as the Nissan System we are dealing with.
As far as we know it may be a completely different type of cooling system and therefore the instructions are
irrelevant and cannot be used to determine that Mr. Smith was checking the coolant level the “wrong” way.
When the vehicle is cold the radiator must be full and the over flow bottle must be between the LOW and FULL
marks, there is nothing complicated about this. If these levels decrease there is coolant loss somewhere.
6.2 Operational Variance
Here the writer claims that because the vehicle now has an increased engine capacity the cooling system will have
different coolant levels. He also states that the Nissan R34 Skyline GTR came with an RB25 engine, which is
incorrect as an RB26DETT was the standard OEM engine.
Now regardless of the engine being an RB26 an RB25 or in this case an RB30 engine block and an RB26 cylinder
head as well as a 3.2L stroker kit to give the engine an overall capacity of 3.2L the cooling system will still function as
per factory.
The full level in the radiator is still when the radiator is full to the top and the overflow bottle is still full where the full
marking is.
These levels remain constant regardless of engine capacity. From the factory the various models of the R34 skyline
all have the same coolant overflow bottles and radiators regardless of engine capacity.
Coolant levels are not checked with a hot engine and/or cooling system so the writers claimed varying “hot/full level”
and “cold/low level” are also incorrect, the Full and Low level markings are the acceptable maximum and minimum
coolant levels for when the coolant is inspected on a cold and depressurised cooling system.
When checking the coolant level by the time the radiator is cool enough and pressure is low enough for the radiator
cap to be opened safely the coolant level will have returned to it’s natural level by recovering any coolant that is
“pushed” into the over flow bottle during normal operation. So the theory of opening the radiator cap “upsetting the
back and forth flow of coolant” is incorrect.
6.3 Initial Leakage
In the 3rd point of this section the writer mentions that the “coolant pressure was unlikely to exceed 16psi while oil
pressure would potentially have been 80 - 90psi” this is correct to a point.
Coolant pressure is dependent on the radiator cap that is installed, so assuming it has a 16psi cap this is correct.
Oil pressure is engine speed dependent (~30psi at idle and 80 - 90psi above 5000rpm) so the majority of street
driving the engine would see a variable oil pressure between 30psi and 90psi.
2
The writer also states that we reported the engine block to be cracked, we used this as one of the possible causes of
the coolant loss into the engine sump, as it is quite a common problem for these 20 year old engine blocks to crack
when making over double the horsepower they were designed for by the manufacturer.
Nowhere did we report this to be the final confirmed cause of the leak but it had to be a serious point of investigation.
7.2 Pressure testing
The writer states that the leak should have been present when the engine block and cylinder head were pressure
tested individually, this is true had the block been cracked or porous.
How ever for the test to be conducted a plate is clamped to the deck face to seal off all the coolant jackets so the
cooling system can be sealed off and pressurised, this plate is a generic item so it also covers the head stud holes
and any other holes in the deck face such as oil feeds and drains that are on the deck face as well.
It is for this reason that the leak was not present during this test, the fact that there were no leaks also suggest the
deck face was not damaged because if it was the pressure test would have showed a leak between the deck face
and the sealing plate.
Next the writer states that by removing one of the near by head studs water was always going to gush out, this
assumption is incorrect.
The RB series of engines have blind head stud holes which means they do not pass through into water jackets. So
had the stud holes been drilled and tapped to the correct depth there would not have been any water coming out of
the stud hole and in turn no water leaking into down through the cylinder head oil feed and then down into the sump.
The reason that particular stud was removed was because the engine uses that stud to feed the cylinder head with
oil. The engine oil travels up the cylinder head oil feed gallery then up the outside of the stud and into the main oil
galleries in the cylinder head. The head gasket has a cut out around the cylinder head oil feed and that particular
head stud to allow the oil to flow between the two parts. A photo of this is included with my original report.
(HEAD OIL FEED 01.JPG)
So the logical course of action would be to follow the path, which the leaking water has travelled to find where it has
started from, the result of this was the leak coming from the head stud hole.
7.3 Oversized stud use
The writer states that other manufacturers, namely Holden use open head stud holes that pass through into water
jackets and supply a sealer to seal these threads, this is partially true but there is one key difference.
Holden use a head bolt and not a stud and nut set.
The bolt head and washer helps to seal any water that may travel up the unsealed head bolt thread, studs are very
different as they have a thread at both ends so the water can work its way between the threads and cause a leak,
hence the need for thread sealer on any studs or bolts that screw into open ended holes.
This is all irrelevant in this case as Nissan do not use open head stud holes for the RB series of engines so there is
no need to ever worry about these kinds of problems even when using the ½” studs that were fitted to this particular
engine.
So removal of the stud while we were testing the engine should never have caused water to gush out contrary to
what the writer suggests.
The fact that the block deck surface and cylinder head face did not leak while they were being pressure tested
proves that the faces were not damaged.

As you can see from this "the writer" made many wrong statements regarding the leaking problem and I doubt if he knows anymore about the RB26 engine as I do and I know SFA!

 

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 

 

 

[JH32]

Glad to hear you got some resolution to this Pete, at least now you can continue on your merry way and enjoy the car.....

 

......with an EFR 8374

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Hi James

Good to have this sorted and the blame clearly pointed to the builder, after all the BS it feels good for a car owner to have a win. BUT even though it was a win, I am out a lot of money because of the faulty workmanship and I will never get it back. I believe the builder was let off too easily and should have paid for most of the repair costs, I did nothing wrong.

Mmmm , EFR8374, after being in Bretts 34 and getting feedback from the boys after driving Niks car, I might have to do it , but I would like to drive a car like Niks to see how it feels , dynos do not seem to capture the bum in seat feeling

I do not think there is any doubt that the 8374 gets going a lot easier than the PT6266 up to 4000rpm , I think the top end is about the same and it would be interesting to see how the 3.2 Lt & the Vcam step 2 handles it ?

[tridentt150v]

Sorry Peter, the Phew was intended to say - at last you got somewhere, and what a long battle you had to do to get there!!!

So now you can relax a bit and draw breath......its over.  Admittedly the result was not ideal [in that you didn't get fully compensated], but it was a result at least.

In an ideal world you would like to think that the business - and businesses like them - take note and apply a greater degree of due diligence in the future, but that - as I said - is an ideal world unfortunately.