Jump to content

Timmaz300

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Timmaz300

  • Rank
    Rank: RB20E
  1. Thanks for the reply. From my reading, I'm under the impression that toe is more of a factor than camber, when it comes to tire wear. Also from reviewing Sydneykid's posts, seems like toe out is desired on the front for better turn in. If your want stability under braking a little toe in is needed, but some toe out will help the back end come around better. Not looking for a track spacific setup, but a reasonable compromise for carving up mountain roads and doing some non competition track time. Still need to figure out tire temps once I hit the track.
  2. Hello everyone. I am wrapping up the last bit of my suspension build. I am looking for recommendations for alignment specs to start with. I have an appointment in the middle of march to get an alignment and corner balance done by a shop at the Nurburgring. I've been reading through some of the past threads and have a general idea of what I should do, but want to confirm that I am going the right direction with my setup. My current setup is: MCA Red series coilovers (11kg front, 7kg rear) Factory sway bars SPL castor rods, outer tie rods, front sway bar end links, rear upper control arms, traction rods, subframe bushings, and spherical knuckle bearings GK tech front upper control arms Superpro rear lower control arm bushings, rear sway bar end links bushings, front and rear sway bar mount bushings. Full Race ETS Pro Dunlop Dirreza ZIII (265/35R18) 200TW From what I can tell I should start with 355mm front 345mm rear ride height 6 degrees castor front -3.25 degrees camber front 2mm total toe out front -1.5 degrees camber rear 1mm total toe in rear Any input would be appreciated. Thank you in advance
  3. At the moment I am not measuring back pressure in the manifold. The 9174 is supposed to spool a couple hundred rmp faster than the 9180, and has a higher rpm limit. I haven't fired it up yet. I got the .92 internally gated housing to keep it simple. I have the turbosmart dual port wastegate on it. I am hoping to keep spool to a minimum. If spool is good, but is not making power, I'll swap to a 1.05 and have external gates added to my manifold. If it doesn't spool like I want it to, I'll step down to an 8374. I figured I'd try a combo different from everyone else. I have a friend that just tuned his 8374 1.05 AR at 605 rwhp at 27 psi on pump gas. So I am hoping my 9174 will do at least that on pump.
  4. I am interested as well in seeing some 9174 data. I have a 9174 with a .92 iwg on a stock bottom end. Full Race said it should be within 80-100 rpm more than a 8374, with the power of a 9180. I should be ready to start tuning it in early April. Still need a few more parts and some time to work on it.
  5. Talking to the guys at Full Race, they said it wasn't a bad choice. I recall seeing a post from Geoff, mentioning swapping up to the 9174. 80-100 rpm later spool than a 8374, with a little more top end. I chose the .92 to keep things simple. I have a turbosmart dual port wastegate for it. I don't have E85 close by right now, but I will in a couple years when I move back to the states. On pump, I'm hoping near 600 awhp, and maybe 775 to 800 awhp on E85. I have ARP head studs and a Nitto headgasket. If the turbine housing ends up being a restriction, then I can get a larger one and swap to external gates. If I don't like the 9174, then I'll just swap down to the 8374. No harm in trying something different. Fuel system and ecu will be ordered soon. Just curious if anyone before me had numbers with this turbo.
  6. Does anyone have results for the 9174 .92 yet? I have one going on my stock 2.6.
×
×
  • Create New...