Dale FZ1

Sounds like you went on a learning sabbatical. Lay the experience on us, with pics.

If you want to tune with PFC, source yourself a Datalogit kit, wide band sensor kit, and from there you will get the right fuel map developed to suit your engine and injector flow capabilities. Is the AFM from an N/A spec capable of measuring the flow of the turbocharged setup? Ignition wise, you've got relatively high static compression, and a fairly restrictive turbine. That's going to impact significantly on what timing the engine will take under boost without being prone to knock. On P98, you're going to have to test - carefully. That timing might be only 5-10 BTDC. And that's why E85 could be your friend if you want it to make reasonable power with a DE+T. ie. you need timing in order to make best torque. But put too much in, and you'll be looking at blown ring lands. The resistance of E85 to knock (compared to petrol) makes life easier. Cruise + light load ignition mapping, you will comfortably be up around 35 degrees (some will use more than that even). Then it's a case of pulling that back as you approach and get into boost. This is not something I would encourage you try to get perfect on road, especially as a novice tuner. It could prove costly, either wreck an engine, the car, someone else, or your licence because of the varying conditions/speeds/loads you need to exercise the engine to log and build your tune file. I no longer have any PFC files that could assist. Have you looked at or found any tuning groups on fakebook? Better still, any groups that only play with Power FC? Or considered a tuner who plays with PFC?

The first one has more compressor capability than turbine. BB cartridge probably means it would offer better streetable response. Assuming impeller design is a copy from Garrett. The second one has more turbine capability than compressor. More open turbine ought to function well on track with generally higher rpm and wider throttle openings. Both are compromises if you want to fit it to a Neo 25, so depends what you are doing with the car. They would drive differently if you could run back to back test. That 20G would struggle to make 280kW on P98. The GTX probably could exceed 300kW on P98. Neither would be a bad thing, and it comes down to price. Garrett pricing for a GTX around 25-2700, you'd hope for better performance and reliability from the real thing. Have you looked at the BW S256 or S257? Viable alternatives and within the price range of the Kinugawa stuff too.

What sort of $$ and availability for these units? Interested

I just used the same stringline setup as used for my static alignments. Very functional.

Overall a decent result. Be interesting to see the boost curve with this one. I'd say that no VCT is a big cause of the relative torque deficit across the 2500-4500 range. Torque peaks at 5500 then starts dropping, so power has peaked before 7000. Not sure why the tuner says it will make more hp with more rpm. Hope he pointed to the saw-tooth shape of the graph over 5000. Might be worth investigating timing scatter, see if that needs to be addressed. Not uncommon to pick up 10-15kW by fixing those issues.

Look at the NZ Wiring cam trigger kits. May provide the solution you require if it all gets difficult. Crank trigger is the best solution to achieve consistent/accurate timing though.

Watched Bathurst race 2 - fairly busy there! Car looked to run well, no obvious vices just running out of revs. Going up Mountain Straight too? What calculated road speed?

If you're achieving 465rwhp the in-cylinder pressures are getting up there. With good tuning the pistons/rods ought to survive. But the OEM head gasket with a bit of age might not be that long lived if the car sees a lot of heavy duty use. MLS type + head stud kit would be worth looking at IMO. Tune will dictate what's "safe".

It comes down to what you want to achieve with this setup. For me, traction is king. Some want maximum mid range punch and enjoy the struggle to master throttle/skid control even on dry roads. My particular setup allows for more/less boost via a dashboard knob, for driveability in various track conditions. (relatively easy process with an ECU that's newer/more advanced than the Power FC). In your case, I think what you could try is to get that boost controller functioning, and have the boost come up to the targeted value earlier across that 3800-4800 rpm band. Given that your target is 1.4 bar, and you're getting 1.35 bar from a 1 bar spring, it's probably fit for purpose. End of the day, a rock steady flat boost curve might look good on a graph, but not give the desired driving experience. It's down to your preference. But play with the controller and see what you like from the result.

As per Johnny's comments, you need to make 100% sure the boost control plumbing is correctly hooked up. That boost graph scale is terrible, but trend seems to be creeping from 3800-4800. That's where your controller should be doing its thing and bringing up boost (and torque) in that range. That said, how's it drive right now - does it put power to the ground through that range, or turn tyres?

I agree - mine is functional too, just found it annoying that it the observed boost level so out of whack with the spring rate. Probably fair to say that with the engine/turbo combinations we really aren't legitimately targeting 1 bar boost though.

Greg for interest/comparison, do you have pics of your gate setup? This may help with conversation here. A lot of effort went into my 6boost gate takeoff angle but we found measured/logged boost pressure around 6 pounds higher than the rated (and bench tested) weight of the gate spring (50mm Pro Gate). Boost was steady/consistent, just higher than we expected. Solution was to run a lighter spring than what the actual target is. Pragmatic but effective; and lots cheaper than more fabrication work.

Got any pics of your gate + piping setup? Gate takeoff angle and plumbing is a critical aspect to achieving proper control. Graph showing how boost ramps and what control through the range without BC active would be useful. Have you spoken with either the fabricator, or your turbo equipment supplier?

Billet block questionable value or purpose at that hp level. Would look at the Kulig bottom end bracing kit for sure though.

Indeed. When 3.4 is a tried and tested option.

Do like the appearance of that housing, looking down the throat and the outlet.

Hoping you could throw up a data graph trace showing IMAP vs EMAP? Might help people visualise how that relationship affects the scavenge and overall engine efficiency. Guessing the engine has become a bit more vocal with the bigger housing.

Just a case of using what works really. With the ready availability of accurate/reliable oil pressure sensors to input into ECU, and easy/cheap oil sample analysis I'd suggest not too hard to monitor and change if required. People in areas where winter temps are in single figures overnight might want the viscosity numbers lower esp for daily driving and cold startups. My hydraulic non-Neo head has had no issues with a 15w50, or even the HPR30 with initial startups. Queensland temps though.

With that much hp you're not likely to treat it nicely. Plenty of revs and load, use the grunt. So the mains and big ends are going to want film strength to carry the load of those cylinder pressures. And you have solid lifters, no hydraulics to complain about oil thickness on cold start. What did your engine builder recommend?

HPR30 or HPR15

Those things look pretty, but the size makes me question how functional they're likely to be on a high revving, highly boosted RB. I'd be thinking they will take about 300ml combined and then dump whatever else gets spat out straight into the inlet tract. They do look nice however.

Bigger engine will suffer from rising EMAP earlier. And kill the ability to flow well, sooner. Will result in tractor type torque curve, fall off quickly as the revs get up.

3.4 stroker will give more torque at lower rpm. Going down a size in turbine A/R will be counter productive especially with the 3.0 bottom end. Can't see the sense in gearing it up with 3.7 diff. A 4.1 will allow it to turn more rpm for a given road speed. And give better response. Stock VLT was gutless off boost, came on with a rush, and then done/gone at around 5-5200. Brilliant in 1986 but that was a while ago now.

Try Winmax - good gear.