Jump to content

Lithium

Members
  • Content Count

    4,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12
  • Feedback

    0%

Lithium last won the day on November 20 2019

Lithium had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

586 Excellent

1 Follower

About Lithium

  • Rank
    Rank: RB30E

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    lith@clear.net.nz
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wellington, NZ

Previous Fields

  • Car(s)
    2007 Mazdaspeed Axela
  • Real Name
    Mr Lith

Recent Profile Visitors

14,994 profile views
  1. I don't think it's that shocking on an RB30, it's good but it's not unheard of at all. I think if you get the EFR8474 running on a good (/similar) RB30 setup you'd not be left feeling disappointed.
  2. Yeah that's what I was referring to with flywheel mode, that actually corrects the 1000+nm torque by dividing it by the final drive - you just have to leave TCF as 1.00 so it doesn't do other inflation
  3. No, the complete opposite. The torque and power numbers shown on a "flywheel" graph on a Dynapack are whatever was measured at the hubs x whatever the TCF is. If the TCF is 1.0 then the number shown is the hub number times 1.0, or basically exactly the same as what was measured. Your TCF of 1.1 means that it has multiplied what the dyno read by 1.1, so it's inflated what the dyno measured by 10% as an attempt to estimate what the engine is making.... that's why they'd used 1.2 for 4WD, as there will be more transmission loss so they inflate the measured number by 20% to try and make up for that. I personally can't stand this practice, and only use "flywheel mode" as it allows you to correct the hub torque using the final drive and I'll just set TCF to 1.0 to make sure there is no inflation going on. Hub dynos read high enough compared to others as it is
  4. I feel personally attacked
  5. Just had a bit of a read through, I have a habit of spending too much time ranting stuff and ending up with people not reading it anyway so to save both of our time I'll try and make some bullet points haha Firstly, just clarify - you are saying it is hitting 17/18psi in the mid 5,000rpm range? Everything I say from here is assuming I've read that right First confirmation, a PT6466 should be able to spool MUCH quicker than that on an RB26 if it's allowed some time to load up - like given about the amount of time you'd expect pulling from 2500-3000rpm in 3rd gear or higher. E85 won't change this much, the effect it has is often more to do with how the engine responds... not the actual boost threshold to a major degree. How does it spool when you drive it? Can you describe when it starts building boost and when its "all in" on the road? Cams have been mentioned a few times, now long duration cams do naturally have a bias to higher engine speeds, but absolutely not to this kind of degree. Also, those HKS cams are meant to be drop in and have the same centerline as stock - you don't need adjustable cam gears to run them. If you do and you have them "dialled" like stock then it should be fine. They'd need to be installed incorrectly to make the lag this bad, not just "not dialled in optimally". Just because it seems like the communication may be murky on this, the suggestions of turning up the boost are NOT going to affect spool, just power. You won't get it coming on any earlier by doing this. There could be some gains with boost control setup, but this sounds like it is just lazy as hell when you want it to go. For what it's worth, what I'm seeing so far makes it sound comparable with a car I've had a lot of time around which runs 280deg cams, a head ported for max power and a T51R SPL running a 1.00a/r open housing. When targetting 17psi it is making that boost by around those rpm with EVERYTHING much bigger and older school than what you have. Have you done much investigation into problems with the car? To me there is very likely to be something wrong, like cams installed wrong, or a major boost or exhaust leak. Did you install the valve seat in the wastegate, for example? In regards to the tuner, that can definitely make it perform like crap - but the spool is hard to make that bad just with a tune, unless you are saying it feels flat under 5500rpm as opposed to not actually making boost. Strange call not sharing the dyno plot or any other effort if you are wanting help diagnosing. Please give any more detail that you can on what you've done to diagnose this, or how it behaves in the real world. I would *NOT* change the cams, or the turbo setup to try and resolve this issue. They would be a lot of work and/or expense when neither should be performing like this - I see too much of this kind of suggestion on this forum when it's clear there is a tuning/mechanical issue which is making a setup which should be able to perform better is not. There is the chance you might find or inadvertently fix the actual cause for this issue while doing so, but there is no guarantee that you will and you could easily end up with the same issue and have gone sideways or backwards with the setup. In Oz they're spoilt by being able to use small cams and push heaps of boost in to make good power, but sounds like you are in the same position we are in NZ where you actually need to manage cylinder pressure to make decent power - which is not ideal, but neither is knock For some reference, here is a dyno plot for a 1.00a/r T4 twin scroll 6466 on an RB26 running Kelford 274/270 cams on E85: And boost: And a pretty much identical setup but with the cams dialled in for power instead of spool (so "laggy"):
  6. Shit, that's pretty decent - nice work Edit: What was responsible for the speed readout on the video? A bit odd that it got you at a peak speed of 161-162kph when you trapped at 108mph lol
  7. Tbh it's hard to know what to say in response to this as you haven't actually specified your aims. You've mentioned response, and mentioned power, but not really what you are looking for. Andrews video really didn't give much info on response, stamping the throttle in 2nd at mid rpm with a car with a sequential gearbox doesn't tell you much. It didn't seem like a lag monster, but what can you really tell watching a video - especially when the video isn't showing a boost gauge or tacho? Fwiw from the little I've seen and the fact that he's basically said its laggier than a GTW3884R (which would be lucky to be over 20psi by 5000rpm) and the fact that the pulls in the video start at an rpm and a gear where it's going to rev out reasonably well even with almost no boost initially it's really hard to draw much from, I'd not be surprised if a 6870 didn't give anything perceptible away. With so little information out I'd be deciding between an EFR9180 or a Precision 6870, both known quantities - the 9180 if you want more response or a 6870 if you want more power. People seem to have been having issues with poor quality housing castings with the EFRs so I am dubious of them atm, so the Precision arguably may be the best option - unless you are keen on taking a punt on the likes of a Xona Rotor XR9569S, the family of which seem to be given some epic results. There are a couple of RBs in Oz due to be running with those in the relatively near future, I'd keep an eye out for results on those as I suspect they could be impressive.
  8. Agreed. The driving seemed pretty decent to be fair, and realistically that should be the best indicator but it would have been nice to have seen a pull in a gear where it doesn't go so fast that you can't tell what's happened - 3rd gear with a boost gauge or something that is meaningful when you aren't actually in the car would have been good, but not having that isn't necessarily being dodgy so much as I know myself that it can be hard to remember what will be helpful when you are out thrashing. The fact that no dyno/boost plot or overlay without calibrated rpm is a LOT more suspicious. That seems like the obvious thing to share if you are happy with the results, or what you'd omit if you really would rather not show it. In regards to the smaller housing, Andrew has mentioned a few times on FB that he'd rather they had a bigger turbine wheel - seems a lot like they think exhaust back pressure is an issue and would probably explain why they didn't bother with the 1.01 in the end. To be fair, the issues didn't seem to be ones which would affect spool. The fact that they pushed it hard with the 1.21 with no filter does make it seem like this must be the upper realms of this turbo in a street(ish) setup.
  9. This is from the blue DC2, right? I was told that this is running an EFR9280 now, and that this comparison is comparing the EFR9180 with the EFR9280.... in fact, if there are no crossed wires then there is a pic of this car on the Full-Race FB page saying it has an EFR9280 now
  10. Jesus, so many ups and downs - hope the journey starts going a bit smoother. This pic stood out to me, Bilsteins are so diverse in their ability! Here are mine before they went in my R33, over 10 years ago:
  11. There are a lot of things I could say to this glorious demo of building a strawman argument, but the most obvious would be - what exactly are you doing in this thread if the sheer mention of 1000hp clearly triggers your fear response?
  12. Actually curious about this myself, I don't profess to know heaps about F1 but I do understand they had a fair bit of R&D and weren't running the worst engine management - all things considered they made small high revving engines survive quite epic power levels fairly well considering
  13. I don't agree, and that's not just because there is a clear difference between being smart and being wise The beauty of modern ECUs, turbos, cams etc etc is that you can build an engine capable of producing 1000hp by nudging the boost up to the level required to make that power - but having that there as an option as opposed to the default mode. For sake of argument, a 1000ish-hp capable single EFR9280 setup on an RB30 would be much much more usable on the road even if running at 600hp than your classic popular 600hp low mount twin setup on an RB26 - and there isn't much use for 1000hp in most situations. If I was building a fun GTR street toy I'd realistically build it like that, a responsive 1000hp capable setup that I rarely ran at such a power level because realistically - even 600hp is nuts on the road, but use 1000hp for the old drag day/chops at roll racing type stuff. Naturally you'll still have a shorter than normal life, and there will be more likelhood of niggles etc... but there are plenty of people crazy enough that it would be worth it.
×
×
  • Create New...