Noz

Use "driver's/passenger's" or "offside/nearside" to avoid confusion :laugh:

All the best mate :)

What's the compression of that cylinder?

They're not. More lbft than bhp up to around 450bhp, equal at 500bhp on a well set up car. Saying that, mapped one the other week with 570bhp & 577lbft.

I've driven & mapped lots of GTSTs & Z32s. Never really thought to compare them, always found the GTST to be a bit boring in all honesty.

I don't think there is any real discernible difference between auto & manual turbos. They're both small turbos. Autos had 280PS, manuals closer to 300PS. I really wish I had run my stockers on a manual set up, my drag times were hindered by dying autobox :( Yes, slight decrease in spool time with a smaller AR, slightly less top end. P.S. Just remembered I'm supposed to be checking something for you! I've been away a fair bit, will get onto it ASAP!

I used my TT when it was an auto as a daily. Much prefer something like my 172 or newage Impreza truth be told. I struggle running Nissans as daily drivers as they can always be made faster so I just see them as R&D machines :wack:

The turbos have exactly the same internals. The only difference is the turbine housing AR ratio. 0.54 for autos vs 0.63 for manuals.

Come over to Stockport the next time I'm mapping one and I'm sure the owner won't mind demonstrating it for you :D

Why wouldn't I be honest, it's all the same to me :wack: The owner loves it, he uses it for drifting and needs good response. I'm not a fan of driver AIDS :)

500 to the wheels with comparable torque level is a very serious car.

Completely depends on the budget. It can be done on a pair of GTX2860s through a single MAF, forged engine, 2.5" pipework, 1.7bar. I also dialled the cams in on that particular car. Made 613bhp at the fly. Would have made more with a dual intake and decent actuators as opposed to the 10psi ones that shipped with the turbos.

What's the budget? This kind of discussion needs boundaries set in reality, otherwise copy Jaffa's spec.

From experience I've found it's number 5 that has a higher failure rate. I know that when there's a fuel delivery issue it seems that 5 fails before 6. Generally, it seems that cyl 5 is the lowest in terms of compression on an overall tired engine. Heat due to insufficient coolant flow plays a massive part in the failure of the rear cylinders. It would be interesting to note if the rear cylinders receive more air than the front four, and the effect of the Bernoulli Principle on fuel flow at cyl 5 at WOT and different duty cycles.

It's a single intake.

That's number 6 cylinder.

One ghost writer required. Full payment in Haribo.

Prices here: http://www.300zx.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?166250-300zx-ECU-Mapping-Services I've not long returned from mapping a Zed with Z1 GT600r turbos. 489.7hp & 471.2lb·ft at the wheels with 1.25 bar peak boost pressure. Would easily make 520+whp with more boost. Fully built engine by Jimmer/PowerZed (years ago), JWT500 cams, still on stock IC pipework. Emerald ECU, must have pressed the sequence [CTRL+P, Enter......... Enter] at least 500 times during the last couple of days :headvswal The midrange surge was "impressive". The other week I mapped another Jimmer-built Zed on GTX2863 turbos and that made 569.4bhp & 577lb·ft at the flywheel with 1.6 bar, stock cams, SMICs, dual intake (under nose panel). Rethink the IC setup, blow-through MAF, short intakes, PowerZed headwork and I'd expect to see 2.5 bar out of those turbos. Expensive though, and a complete waste of time unless you're prepared to run proper boost (1.6 bar minimum, 2+ bar preferable).

:wheelchair:

Qft :D

I thought you were importing one? Got to be quite a few available, Shirley?

Pretty much every car going has an aftermarket option for tubular manifolds :laugh:

Fond memories of this car :D

No, high 3s to mid 4s.

? It should be set to 0.44-0.46v.