Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, 

I am working on a 1993 R32 GTR for a friend of mine and have to install a Greddy oil filter relocation kit and a Greddy Oil Cooler. The oil filter relocation kit comes with two plates (one that goes where the original oil filter went on the block and one where the oil filter will eventually sit [somewhere near the dirver's side strut mount]). The oil cooler comes with a thermostatic sandwich plate which also seems to go where the original oil filter position was. However, it also mounts up to the plate from the filter relocation kit. 

Do I just hook up both kits as normal and simply screw in the thermostatic plate on the oil filter relocation plate and then the oil filter on top of that? Or do I put the thermostatic sandwich plate on the block (and attach the oil relocation plate on top)

I have included a picture of the 3 plates in question. The plate on the left is the plate where the oil filter will go after being relocated, the middle on is the thermostatic plate that came with the oil cooler, and the plate on the right is the plate that screws into the block where the original oil filter location is. The second picture is just me test installing it to show my idea. 

I was wondering how I should route this and needed input from anyone who has done this. I.e. How to arrange the plates and which tubes to go to which ports. 

P.S. I didnt order these parts or plan this out I'm just the one installing them. 

Thanks in advance!

 

20230519_232454.jpg

20230520_123036.jpg

You need to make sure the oil is filtered, whether or not the thermostat is opened. Can't really tell how it works from those pics and I assume there were no instructions provided....

Did the kit come with lines, or are you making them. The old school location of upside down on the strut tower is a crap idea. Much better to mount the filter upside down on the chassis rail in front of the front diff

Yes I'm sure its genuine. I believe the mistake my friend made was ordering a relocation kit separate from the oil cooler kit rather than getting the combined kit. I saw on Greddy's website these are 2 separate kits.

The kits came with lines. 2 lines on the relocation and 2 kits on the oil cooler. 

Looking at this now I believe that the oil will be filtered whether or not the thermostat is open. 

The first picture shows how the plate operates when cold. Oil comes up from the bottom and goes into the filter- and exits the filter back to the block. (when cold it comes through where the spring is in the hole).

The second picture shows how it will work when it is hot. The thermostat opens and the oil flows out of the thermostat plate to the cooler- it then comes back to the filter by the space that is now opened because the thermostat is open (and returns to the block). [Where the brass piece is now- as its at room temp its closed]. 

The third picture is the bottom of the thermostatic plate. 

In other words, when the thermostat opens the part of the plate that would lead directly to the filter is closed but there is enough space left open for the oil to go directly to the cooler. Additionally the space that is now open because the thermostat is open allows oil to flow back from the cooler into the filter (through the left port). 

The truth is they should have gotten the combined kit but probably did not realize they can achieve the relocation and oil cooler with one kit rather than 2.

What do you think?

P.S. The oil filter will go near the strut but it won't be upside down- it will be vertical. 

 

20230520_183037.jpg

20230520_183054.jpg

20230520_183101.jpg

Edited by Tom24GR
Adding the P.S.
  • 2 weeks later...

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...