Lithium

I'd have gone an EFR8374 over a Precision 6266 on your car with what you were after, money being no object. I'm certain it'd be a nicer setup - though I'm not really so sure it'd be worth the money and effort changing now that you have the 6266 - though. Depends on if you still feel it needs more snap? Maybe try and find someone with an EFR on board?

Those exhaust versus intake manifold pressure levels are pretty unacceptable imho. You'll find at that kind of level your engine VE will be plummeting compared to normal, if it's even sustainable My take away from that is the 7670 is a terrible call for that engine setup - at least at those rpm. Nismo32ish - because the way the thread convo has panned out I feel compelled to point out that these theoretical numbers AREN'T for E70 like the earlier discussion could lead one to think.

I f**king told you so

Exactly what I was thinking. I'm not explaining to you because it has already been explained in here and because you've made it clear you disagree regardless... why would I? Was good to dip the toes in the water again and see this attitude is still strong here, I hope this works out well - Pete... I hope things clear up for you soon, I'm sure Paul etc will keep me up to date

It's a possible explanation, not "oh this is it, case closed." Not everyone is arrogant or ignorant enough to say stuff to the effect of "I don't know what your reasoning is, but I know it's wrong." I'm not going to explain the reasoning as I'm well past getting trapped throwing pearls before swine, I've just taken an interest here as I've been hearing quite a bit from people about this thread and keen to see a good outcome.

Haha he has a smaller turbine with a smaller housing with a bigger engine being pumped up by a higher flowing compressor. It's gonna be awful if yours is bad

I tend to agree

You have a torquey responsive >500whp pump gas GTR, even if there may be bugs to iron out it probably smashes most people here's pump gas cars in terms of all around power delivery even while hobbled. I'm playing a tiny little violin for you right now, thinking how little I'd complain if I had what you have right now

Cool! I remember drunk conversations at Mick's place a couple of years ago playing around with ideas like this - we were discussing FP based similar solutions, but this works. Will be very interesting to see how it comes out I still wonder/worry a bit about the housings and potential restrictions beyond the actual wheels themselves which could hamper progress but I hope they are unfounded. When do you aim to have this all together?

The 62mm Precision CEA compressor seems to have potential for around 74lb/min flow which puts it on par with the GTX3582R and HTA3586 compressors - the compressor (so long as nothing is causing it to work harder than it should) should have plenty more in it... but yeah, that was what I usually used as a hint of if a turbo was struggling to hold boost. I normally identify soaring TIP while tuning by VE falling over and/or detonation becoming an issue and tend to stop trying to get more boost before it becomes a big problem so the only times I've seen issues raising boost is also the times IAT starts going up - or compressor efficiency is plunging. Those two points set up for XKLABA's comments: This is a good point after XGTRX's comments regarding excessive exhaust manifold pressure possibly causing the wastegate valve to crack open prematurely - if that's the cause then a stiffer spring would potentially delay that a bit and allow a bit more boost to be forced into it, though I don't really like that too much given if exhaust pressure is already that high then the engine's VE will be starting to plummet and things will be getting quite uncomfortable in the engine.... which leads to: Yep - agreed, those thumbsuck power ratings piss me off to a degree, its good for a lot of people but when it gets to the nitty gritty it causes a lot of confusion when people keep falling back to "But it's rated to xxHP - it should be able to make that" or even in some cases "It can't make that, it's not rated to that power!!!". At a more fundamental level, engine volumetric efficiency is largely to do with the momentum and pressure differential of gases between the intake, the cylinder and the exhaust... cam's obviously have a huge role in that, but if (due to a restriction) the exhaust manifold pressure starts soaring then you can find it becomes increasingly harder for the engine to evacuate the gases involved in the previous cycle meaning for all intents and purposes you have less volume to work with and higher in-cylinder temperatures, then combine that with the BSFC (fuel used, compression, and a variety of other things) and suddenly a "700hp turbo" can make anywhere from 350hp up to 800+hp @ crank when maxed out in different situations. Fun times.

It sounds like you are relatively happy with the sheer power it has? Hopefully a bit of touch up tuning and maybe cam swinging might make the low down a bit better and bring it together to be what you want There have obviously been a few clued up minds involved, no doubt not least CRD and there are question marks still raised so this kindof highlights how many variables there are to be addressed when getting something absolutely humming perfectly and a good percentage of cars are running safe and well with potential improvements to be had but we have to draw a line somewhere. I hope this works out to be what you were after, and even if there is "more" it doesn't mean its not right if you don't have it - so long as its not because something is actually blatently wrong.

I am starting to agree with the plausibility of his theory - I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the issue, but. You have a .82 open housing, a .84 open housing is a different beast and in most cases I would expect it to be more comparable in to a .6x open housing which would make people shit themselves if it was said that someone was going to put on a 3.2 litre aiming for 400kw+ on petrol. When I first heard about this I thought the hotside was going to be too small and that was before I learnt it was a small divided hotside on it, I've never thought about or had to deal with a bad turbo match like this causing excess back pressure - I like to think all the things I have been involved with have quite well matched turbos and as such exhaust manifold pressure has tended to be sane and never thought about the effect on the waste gate but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. Always nice to learn something

Never heard of an external wastegate opening due to exhaust pressure tbh, I'd consider it a design issue if it did - by function definition they are meant to block any flow until the reference pressures met targets - especially if it had both ports utilised. In regards to VE dropping, that's just going to mean boost pressure will go up for a given airflow - the 62mm hot side is proven to flow much much more than Pete's setup is asking of it... so while I agree it's hotside is way too small for that setup (.8x twin scroll 62mm on a 3.2 - what the actual f**k? I didn't realise...) IMHO I think that explanation doesn't add up. In saying that, it's making good power and if Pete is happy with it then really all that really seems to be needed is making sure the mechanical and tune situation is on point and enjoy. Things don't seem to be necessarily optimal, but I'm not expecting to see miraculous improvements in power - perhaps some improvement in power delivery if it turns out the intake cam proves to be excessively retarded in practice.

While I don't think that turbo is necessarily the best option for this setup, I tend to agree that the turbo is not the most likely cause of what is being seen. Again a shame that there appears to not be better communication from the previous tuner.

Guessing they had the DD in the mode which estimates engine power as in that mode the tend to read similar to Dynapack, there is no way you will be making that power on a DD the way the typical Oz workshop would run it. No hate, just realistically

Subboy- I suspect your car on a Dyno Dynamics would be doing well to go over 420wkw so the power difference is not quite as substantial, and the effect of a smaller turbine (yours would be more comparable to a 6266 - which btw would be far more suitable on this regardless) would be pretty substantial on a 3.2 litre. It would be nice if there was communication from the tuner on why the drop back in boost but it seems on the fringe of plausible that it could be a contributing factor to it maybe not making quite as much as what one would think could be doable. No matter what it's clearly a very impressive pump gas weapon and nice to think there is potentially gains to be had with further optimisation

I doubt it. It sounds like a silly idea to me.

Very nice, that's with the 6870 eh? What hotside?

Everyone gave up two years ago, mate

Is it still the HTA86?

(y) Though the ECU is also only as good as the person operating it. A lot of ECUs default (/ force) the tuner to use gauge pressure for the fuel table setup and apply baro correction to it as part of the fuel calculation, though if you are using Alpha-N (as you would with an RB26 with an ITB intake manifold) then the fuel calculation becomes a bit "different" and you need to ensure the ECU has the facility to do baro correction, and you of course need to enable that mode as well Its a bit disappointing how much seems to be overlooked by people willing to take lots of money on the premise they know how to make the car entirely usable.

Don't mistake a "facepalm" tone with rage, and yes I fully realise all of the above - I'm just too nosy for my own good, but realistically neither me nor the forum seem to be getting much out of the time I am wasting and I don't really have enough of it these days... so yep probably your most reasonable post on this topic.

Hahaha thought you'd like Jesus, I keep forgetting why I stop posting on here quickly get reminded (and really starting to learn not to now) when I try to just dip in and give some data which can be used to think about when we have nothing better to refer to. Of course it would with NOS, but we all know that - I'd not be wasting my time talking about it if it was using NOS. From what I know the car is very close to original layout aside from strengthening weaker parts and tweaking the setup to hook. It's on Nizpro's site: http://www.nizpro.com.au/no-2-steve-g-ford-fg-9-46sec147-89mph/

Yeah I was more focusing on the trap speed, ET very much would be helped by trans and displacement but again all I was trying to put across is that it has ran a big trap and therefore has a lot of power, no matter how big the motor is you aren't going to be able to do something the turbo isn't able to move the air to support... the 4litre clearly won't be making >500kw wheels without the turbo and it'd have to be making well over that point to run that trap. Obviously Piggaz needs to get one so we can find out how it goes in a GTR