Lithium

Not with the new turbo yet, today it was it's first runs - the turbo seems to have maxed out at about 36psi (with 280deg cams) but I don't know what boost it was running for the 8 - definitely not 36psi. Here's a dyno vid (unfortunately they only uploaded to FB): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=194348620749465&set=vb.173984302785897&type=2&theater'>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=194348620749465&set=vb.173984302785897&type=2&theater Dyno numbers will be a bit messed up due to the loose Powerglide - but a Supra running 8s at >150mph is going to be making north of 900hp to start with, it isn't running NOS and it did it off the foot brake with more boost in it.... so safe to say that it's already a pretty stout result

A Supra owner in the US has upgraded from their old Borg Warner S467 T4 turbo to a T3 flanged FP Super99HTZ and picked up 15% more power with a huge increase in spool - they run a Powerglide and usually use a transbrake however they are testing for an event this weekend where the class they will be in doesn't allow transbrakes, so they did testing using a foot brake starting at low boost to see how much they could hold back with the foot brake and have already laid down a 8.97 @ 151mph... I suspect when they get to a meet they can use the transbrake and wind up the boost a few eyebrows will be raised - not that running 8s on a T3 based turbo with a Supra isn't pretty unreal as it is!

Ahh silly me - cheers for the details, sounds like it's going to be a bit of a monster

Nice work! What are the engine specs? And is that one of those "oil less" Comp Turbos? Not a popular choice - be interesting to hear how it goes

Any progress? Hoping things start going a bit smoother soon

I actually headed past your area a couple of times to say "Hi" but wasn't sure who you were and the moment didn't seem right for a random to push in and say "Who is PJ???" - then next thing I knew the weekend was done, it really was a blur of an event.... went past so quickly it wasn't funny. First trip to Oz was a goodn' and I'll be back, hopefully just get to see an even crazier S13

I was about to say "Now you're just starting to get silly..." but really, that happened quite a while ago. That thing is a beast to watch, was glad I got to see it running in the flesh!

I've tended to use a mixture of GPS/Accelerometer/datalogging for whenever we've tried it out - I usually calibrate the ECU software using GPS to make sure the speed data is as accurate as possible, so as long as there is no traction loss it's not normally too bad. I've been in much quicker cars, but funnily enough the quickest 80-120 time I've actually specifically logged and checked was an S14 Silvia I've tuned which runs a TD05-16G (probably because we did so many logs while tuning there was heaps to refer when the idea of TED came to mind) and it was doing 2.1s in 3rd, and even sub 3s in 4th!

Very nice result! Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Awesome to hear so far - so the spool looks like it is going to be up to your hopes?

What are the rest of the specs of the car? We used to use that too, though a few we have done did actually have traction issues trying to test it haha. I have in my head mine was doing 2.5-2.8 range too but it has been quite some time since I tried it. Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I like where you are going there Mick, serious potential for you there - you could use RB26 pistons and short rods (so it will sound awesome) to make a 1.7litre... put a T66 on it with a 2" exhaust and get 50psi by 3000rpm. Will be tough!

Only if you can do short rod versions.

Honda F20C from an S2000 - oh no, wait - it's rod length and stroke are almost the same as an RB30... clearly it can't rev!

Awesome results man - is that much of an improvement over before?

I'm starting to feel like I am wasting too much time on forums, but I had already thrown this together to ponder it visibly so I thought I'd throw this into the mix given that piston speeds/acceleration relative to rod length and stroke seems to come up in these conversations all the time - my maths may or may not be right here (looks close to legit to me haha) but this is more just to get an indicator of the sheer acceleration of the piston (at the pin) of the different factory RB layouts. I have used this calculation to work out piston acceleration relative to crank angle (l = rod length, r = crank radius, A = crank angle, 0deg crank angle = TDC): Piston acceleration to sustain equivalent rpm: Piston acceleration to move equivalent swept volume: I did it for my own interest so I figured I may as well share it as I know that some other people like to ponder on this kind of thing too. If anyone have a better (or more OCD) handle on physics/maths then feel free to correct or add to it - but again I will probably make myself relative scarce after this so I'm adding it before I lose the bits and pieces I put together. Cheers.

Was just trying to be helpful, was Garrett based and a lot of people don't know there is a bigger world than Garrett who have been all but left in the dust. But point noted, I have meant to have given up on trying to be "helpful" on these forums - just got a brief burst of enthusiasm for this place after finally actually meeting some SAUers... as you were

I am sure there will be a case - problem is most of the time if someone does that much of an upgrade they change a variety of things and there will be teething issues, or BIG jumps in performance... depending on how things go. For what it's worth, people (especially with turbocharged motors) have gone to lengths to improve torque and reduce lag as a means to drop lap times since people started hunting lap times - instead of specifically looking for RB30 vs 26 vs whatever lap times... just look for people who have gone quicker by improving response, torque, or even power. Also - where is the compromise with going for an RB30? I have never seen a dyno plot where the power on the RB30 is lower than the power on an RB26/whatever where everything else is equal. The RB30 dyno plot MAY drop off more than the RB26 one, relative to it's peak... but I have never seen it fall below the RB26 equivalent at any point in the utilized rev range. That is not even taking into account the thing you can't see on a dyno, how long it takes to "come alive" when you step on the throttle. In regards to the piston speeds- or more importantly, piston acceleration... lets ponder it. Firstly - I'm not going to do PROPER airflow or engine cycle maths because CBF and the main point I am trying to get at should be easier to follow this way... Lets say a 2.6litre @ 7000rpm = 2.6 x 7000 = 18200litres/min Now 18200 litres/min / 3.0 = 6066rpm to move the same amount of air to access the same power level. Now to get the average piston speed - RB26: 7000rpm x 73.7 / 1000 (convert to metres) / 60 (convert to m/s) = 8.6m/s RB30: 6066rpm x 85.0 / 1000 (convert to metres) / 60 (convert to m/s) = 8.6m/s - surprise surprise!! Now here is the clincher... if you were going to look at it in an overly simplified manner you would go "Sweet... that's the same piston velocity, we're good - short stroke ftw because it's smaller and it moves the same air, right?" OK... now consider this: RB26: 7000 / 60 (revs/s) *2 (piston direction changes a second) = 233 stop/starts per second RB30: 6066 / 60 (revs/s) *2 (piston direction changes a second) = 202 stop/starts per second So, the RB30 and the RB26 have exactly the same piston speed to move the same amount of air - yet the RB26 has to stop and start 31 times a second MORE than the RB30. If you think about it, while the average speed is the same - the only way that it is possible for the RB20 to have the same average speed despite coming to a completes stop 31 times a second is to slow down faster to a complete stop, then accelerate harder to a HIGHER peak velocity and then repeat the cycle.... 233 times a second. It is not possible to travel the same distance stopping 15% more times within the same period of time without having to work harder to achieve that. The same power with less displacement = working harder. In case of train spotters, yes I know those numbers are not all going to be exact, or in some cases technically completely incorrect - but in terms of illustrating my point if you changed them to exact final numbers the relative differences should be relatively on par.

They are actually well used on GTRs, and Porsches in twin turbo form too... a huge percentage of the 8s GTRs running around run these turbos

Awesome, look forward to hearing how the tidy up goes Agreed with GTScoTT - best all around GTR I have experienced, I said it at the time... but I was looking forward to seeing how the -5s and 28 (along with cam choice etc etc) worked together but what actually REALLY wowed me was just how well put together the entire car was, and those brakes! Fantastic car, would be a weapon on the track

Less torque = more revs required for equal power More revs = best way (short of detonation) to drastically increase stresses on an otherwise equivalent engine Weight = RB26 and RB30 have the same bore. Increased recipocation within a time frame will add more drag on the crank than a slightly longer rod Faster = There is probably a reason that most race classes are broken into displacement categories, the reason Nissan put an RB26 as opposed to bigger into a GTR was because of such restrictions. Sound... I'll just leave this here:

Agreed, just pointing out it is still a large turbo - but it is SERIOUS business... especially when no one has pushed a 99HTZ to it's limits, yet.

72mm, it's hearty.... Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

First 7s car I am aware of running a single T3 turbo, using a .85a/r FP Super 99HTZ: And an AWD DSM ran a 1000ft test run this weekend and lifted to hit 8.2 at 153mph also using an HTA - they only had an 8.5 certified cage and had suspected they MIGHT go too fast, hence lifting at 1000ft.... but were kicked out due to still going way too quick. Seems like there may be a couple of 7s AWDs and a number of low 8s ones running these turbos in the near future

I'm sure he can add more if he wants to, but in short - no. Shame it didn't work out for them though, I was really keen to see how that car would go too... everything there to be an absolute animal!