rob82

Measure the impeadance of boh valves and if they are similar ie - within 50% of each other give it a crack.

I would suggest around 2.2mm lift @TDC inlet and 0.8mm lift @TDC exh as a start point. HKS cams work great on STD centers - pretty sure they have moved the center lines forward so they work just by dropping them in and setting them to zero. For more low end try more ad on the inlet(clockwise rotation) and slightly retard on the exh to increase overlap. But too much overlap will kill top end especially if back pressure is an issue.

No it's not it is directly proportional. It's just most people don't know how to calculate the multiplier to get to engine torque.

Usually because of dodgy dyno operators.

Thats shite - By my calcs for a normal engine 2000cc injectors @43pi base pressure@65% duty you should be making making 650kw @ the wheels on a dyno dynamics dyno. You've obviously got something wrong there. BTW most engine idle better with a richer idle.

Best tuner in the world ain't going to be able to tune around the wrong combination of parts - I would run it by him b4 buying injectors.

There is a fair difference between the ID1000 and ID2000cc injectors in terms linerarity at the on opening time required for a closed loop idle. I have tryed tuning ID2000 on an EVOX(which will have almost identicle fuel requirements as a RB30) with the factory ECU and had issue getting to a closed loop idle even wtih e85. If you have a decent ECU make sure you set your min on time to around 1.5ms and just let it go rich. Make sure you get your dwell times correct which isn't allways the same as what is supplied with the injectors.

I wouldn't trust an AFM to stay in tune for any length of time with the airflow meter having to cope with the amount of oil that will be discharged from a turbo. Hope you guys are keeping a good eye on AFR's.

Well said. Plus there is no reason that rods wont last forever if they operate within the design limits. The problem with off the shelf rods is that they are usually designed to be as strong as possible and rated by testing in a high HP engine. Its just to hard to optimise rod design for each engine without knowning all the variables (max rpm, torque, location of PP etc etc.

If you can get a top feed rail with the injector adadtors those injectors will work much better than the nismo's.

Dry sump is a waste of time unless its a track only car. I still cant see the point of having massively excess flow rates if the motor only really requires say 50% more flow than is need to get to the pressure releif valve set point. All you will do is loose power through parasitic loses of the pump(and slightly negative sump pressure isn't going to make for the parasitic losses of the pump). But if you do decide to waste money then make sure you scavenge the head.

Is it a MAF based ECU?

Ignition retard on rev limiters has nothing to do with reducing the accelleration of the engine its more to do with reducing knock and or spurious ignition events on the limiter due to noisy crankangle signals. If you want a proper soft limiter get an electronic throttle and and close it like some manufacturers do. 2-3degrees ignition retard - depending upon the engine will really only remove 5-10% of the power.

Yes and as for cheap no. The only standalone one I've ever configured is racelogic system but expect to pay around $3-4K. It is F1 quality tho and you can dial in different slip settings - was really nice on a Lotus exige.

No point if you concerned about fuel flow then turn the base pressure up.

Lets assume your intake pressure is a constant 15psi from 3000-7000rpm on a WOT dyno run. If the intercooler has a flow issue you will find that the pressure difference from side will increase with rpm - ie there maybe no pressure drop until 4000rpm where it may increase linerly to the rev limit. If you have a 1-2psi drop I wouldnt be to concerned but if the rate at which the pressure accross core starts to increase expotentially then that where you will start to have an issue. Determining the thermal properties of a core can be done in the same way. My pick for all out horsepower is process west.

I dont know why everyone thinks they can real off 400rwkw with a 35r on pump even with a 1.06 rear its a stretch - well it is on a proper reading dyno anyway. I would be looking at you exh back pressure before going any further.

Yes and yes to above comments.

What ECU?

You are spot on. It doesn't matter which gear you are in if the time for the ramp is the same the MAP vs RPM will be the same. That being said up to a point the more torque you make the harder it is for the tyre carcass to transmit the torque to the roller. Once you get to this point the variation in dyno results can be massive. We have found that over 6000N of tractive effort on two 235's tyres is where the results can start to get spurious. On some big XR6T's we are making close to 12000N of tractive effort in 4th gear going out to 220Km/hr and I can tell you if I did two dyno runs back to back the power drops about 100rwkw and the roller tacho number - ie RPM/VSS ratio can change about 400rpm. Also mustange dyno read high compared to Dyno dynamic dyno's.

Silly question - are you using the appropriate torque order?

The std top half of the manifold is not just an open plenum it has about 5inches of runner in it before it opens up into a small plenum just before the throttle body.

You remove the top half of the std manifold to fit the plazmaman plenum - hence you halve the manifold length or close enough to it anyway. Its funny that you say it was more respsonsive everywhere. Are you sure it wasnt that you have twice the available air at any throttle position. Its like tuning electronic throttles - all you have to do is give them more actual throttle at the same APP and they think the car is so much faster - when in reality at full throttle it still makes the exact same power!

Have you got dyno graphs to prove back to back runs with nothing but the intake manifold change. Talk to some of the RB25 guys that go to the plazman manifold - they all experience some bottom end loss due the runner length halving.

Its actually 200 times.