Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I pulled 242rwhp with only a pod and 3' exhaust out of the turbo in an auto with the rb2.5t on psi s dyno in perth

then had a front mount and eboost and did 244rwhp at 8 psi and then 250 at 10psi on xspeeds dyno

both places said they had never seen an auto pull that much with thous mods only

james

Ignition system seems to play a part in the power differences perhaps.

I notice that many of the curves are similar on 240/50rwhp cars to the 300ish ones, with the difference coming in up top. If the spark isn't as clean this could account for the power difference. The coils and wires under the cover get very very hot and this effects resistance and reduces the efficiency of wires over time with heat cycling.

no way r33's can make that much power.

the above poster is claiming 267.2rwhp on stock boost stock turbo, HELLO THATS IMPOSSIBLE.

r34 gtts with running 12-14psi with powercf, hi flow exhaust etc etc are only making 260-270HP on the stock turbo.

Edited by noise

I am pretty sure that 25 neo's can only do 195-205rwkw max from stock turbo.

Thats 261.50-274.90rwhp.

how is an older less powerfull rb25 going to put out more power with fewer mods?

it isnt, stop talking shit.

or point me in the direction of threads of people posting dyno sheets to show otherwise.

i dont know why yours didnt make more then 270 rwhp

Shall I direct you to threads showing you this? how about you go to a workshop with a database of dyno sheets and look at them?

I didnt even own the car when it made the power, so i have no need whatsoever to talk it up. Those numbers where made on a DD accredited dyno

The car had

A garrett cooler, not gtr sized, just under.

A mettams morley dump and front, leading into a apexi cat back. 3 inch hi flow cat

11 psi

Walbro fuel pump

KN air filter

s2 motor

manual

standard timing

272 rwhp.

www.antilag.com/personal/tom/my31 for pics of the engine bay etc, so you can see it wasnt packing a hidden t88 etc.

tj

and back to the argument ... 319 rwhp is very very very hard to believe

Edited by dan_the_man
I am pretty sure that 25 neo's can only do 195-205rwkw max from stock turbo.

Thats 261.50-274.90rwhp.

how is an older less powerfull rb25 going to put out more power with fewer mods?

it isnt, stop talking shit.

or point me in the direction of threads of people posting dyno sheets to show otherwise.

umm ok...

im not saying 319rwhp is possable...

but why have many not just one or two, rb25 run between 280-300rwhp on stock turbo?

just because ur r34 didnt make it, doesnt mean its not possable for another rb25 power cars to do it

I pulled 242rwhp with only a pod and 3' exhaust out of the turbo in an auto with the rb2.5t on psi s dyno in perth

then had a front mount and eboost and did 244rwhp at 8 psi and then 250 at 10psi on xspeeds dyno

both places said they had never seen an auto pull that much with thous mods only

james

Hey James! man hows that happening? I only got 202rwhp with 3" exhaust & POD! Damn I'm pisst! What PSI was it at b4 FMIC etc?

Back to the basics,Im sure there not stock but they sure look untouched.

NEO engines have nastie combustion chambers for polution reasons and will ping at less timing than an R33 RB25.

Some shops are not aware the NEO head is different,A few weeks ago a shop removed the head of a NEO fitted to an R33 finding it looked different told the guy the head was an NA head and had to be replaced.

So yes theres lots of misinformation around.

Some strange things have happend to new cars like in the early 70s Fords GTHO Phase 4 was shelved by the government (AS were GM etc)

so ford stuck some parts on a 2 door falcon and tagged it RPO87

the rest ended up in ZF Fairlanes without the new owners ever knowing

and over the years we saw stockers with Noddy iron 9in diffs winged sumps and 4V heads with 780cfm Carbs etc so who knows what may have happened with these cars,Prolly modded very early in life by very carefull mechanics?

got to remember that the dyno is a tuning aid at the end of the day. There is some value in relative comparisons but, not something people need to get hung up on if their car is doing what they want on the road or track. If your tuner is handing the car back to you with improved power characteristics this is what matters.

Some R33 gtst 200rwkw+ cars have run against my old R33 gtst (dyno of 170rwkw) and had an ass whipping both in 1/4 mile time and terminal speed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
×
×
  • Create New...