Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So Dan,

this SlidingPerformance Roller-bearing turbo spools slower than the stock ball-bearing turbo? You notice this difference?

doesn't any turbo with a larger rear AR ????

just a question dan

did you get the exact turbo off the shelf to what the site shows or did you get it customized some how?

why do you reach 10psi at 3,000 rev?

I thought you would be reaching it earlier because apparently Satanic reaches 11psi at about 1,800 revs. His turbo is customized though.

maybe you will need to tune your ecu?

My one isn't the 'off the shelf version' it has a larger exhaust side. Yes it is noticeable that it spools slower than the stock turbo, but when you look at how fragile and light the stock one is; it's no suprise. I'm pretty picky about lag and this turbo isn't bothering me in the slightest, especially when it kicks in :thumbsup: You can't expect stock response out of a turbo which will way surpass the current power output.

I could be reaching more pressure earlier by throwing some timing into the tune and removing some fuel around 2800-3000rpm, but I don't think there is a hope in hell of getting 11psi at 1800...I could only just get that with a stock turbo on my 10:1 compression engine!!!

I think most people out there, even with GCG highflows would be saying the same about where the boost kicks in.

I'm 1000% happy with it :dry:

hmm... Interesting Dan.

I hope mine will perform similar to yours.

Planning to install it next monday.

I'll let you guys know how it goes.

Hopefully its similar to yours Dan.

I also have the bigger exhaust size.

By the way, have you had any chance in dyno differences between the stock turbo towards this turbo?

No haven't had a chance to get it on the Dyno yet, also the turbo will take about 1000kms to run-in...until then you'll probably be boosting around 4000rpm like I was for 2 weeks, once everything had worn in and loosened-up it's awesome.

I think most people out there, even with GCG highflows would be saying the same about where the boost kicks in.

I have said this many times, so I apologise for repeating myself if you have read it before.

The GCG ball bearing high flow on the R34GTT made more power EVERYWHERE than when it was standard. That’s from idle to redline.

:dry: cheers :thumbsup:

I can't comment on power from idle, I'd assume more considering that the exhaust side is 1.5 times as big as the R34 exhaust housing...hence flowing more, hence more power.

I'd say there could be a slight difference in power with this turbo around the 2800rpm-3000rpm range as my tune had a lot more timing in this area and power peaked very steeply with the stock turbo (poor traction at low rpm)

Once again though I'd be interested to see a pressure log against rpm for the GCG if anyone has this info laying around? Then we'll have something concrete to compare with regard to spooling time (even though shaft speeds aren't available to us)

Currently the car feels a lot more street friendly.

I have said this many times, so I apologise for repeating myself if you have read it before.

The GCG ball bearing high flow on the R34GTT made more power EVERYWHERE than when it was standard. That’s from idle to redline.

:dry: cheers :thumbsup:

I've actually found this interesting, as the GCG isn't as responsive as the stock turbo, so wouldn't be making pressure at the same rate, how would it have more power in the 2500-3000rpm range?

As mentioned before, I'd understand from idle to 2500rpm purely from the better flow of the exhaust, but this wouldn't account for any extra power in the rev range where the stock turbo is already at a decent shaft speed and the highflow just wouldn't be at the equivalent speed...there must be at least 500rpm where the GCG doesn't make more?

I've actually found this interesting, as the GCG isn't as responsive as the stock turbo, so wouldn't be making pressure at the same rate, how would it have more power in the 2500-3000rpm range?

As mentioned before, I'd understand from idle to 2500rpm purely from the better flow of the exhaust, but this wouldn't account for any extra power in the rev range where the stock turbo is already at a decent shaft speed and the highflow just wouldn't be at the equivalent speed...there must be at least 500rpm where the GCG doesn't make more?

When I say “more power than standard” I mean SHOWROOM STOCK STANDARD. That’s;

Standard dump

Standard engine pipe

Standard cat

Standard exhaust

Standard ECU

Standard tuning

Standard air filter

Standard intercooler

I suspect what you are comparing is all of those things modified, but with the standard turbo. However that is obviously no longer STANDARD.

:( cheers :woot:

Edited by Sydneykid
When I say “more power than standard” I mean SHOWROOM STOCK STANDARD. That’s;

Standard dump

Standard engine pipe

Standard cat

Standard exhaust

Standard ECU

Standard tuning

Standard air filter

Standard intercooler

I suspect what you are comparing is all of those things modified, but with the standard turbo. However that is obviously no longer STANDARD.

:( cheers :woot:

Ahh OK, you mean extra-shitty standard...yeah I'll go with that, the extra flow in just the housing would be an awesome improvement for a stocker which actually feels quite laggy in factory form.

but the GCG has a bigger compressor so even at lower spool it can create the same airflow.

That's true, but it still doesn't reach a shaft speed which would produce the equivalent pressure before the stock turbo.

Who would that be? SK? or PaulR33? I wouldn't be calling them keyboard mechanics....

The purpose of this post and forum is to promote open discussion and information, from all sides.

I havent heard anyone say that these turbos were shit, all I've heard is people's opinions, own trials and information they've provided, ultimately it is each persons own choice to choice their turbo for their own uses.

If anything I'd say most people have had positive feedback, and that's a good thing.

Ummm no...

I have had quite a few worthwhile discussions with both Gary and Paul, who are both knowledgeable.

I am referring to the sheep...so re-read my post and build a bridge...

Don't turn a good thread into your own self promotion... :(

Dan do you have this turbo in????

I am confused with all this GCG discussion...

????? its quite clear Dan now has this turbo installed, and seems to be happy with it

Dan do you have this turbo in????

I am confused with all this GCG discussion...

Yep the turbo is in, and I'm extremely happy with the performance (just to recap, feels faster running 10psi, than the stock turbo running just under the factory retard ~ 12psi)

Thanks Dan!!!

Can't wait to see what it pulss with a decent tune. So what is the pocket damage fo this little upgrade???

What are the specs seeing as this is not an "off th shelf" item???

tangles...thanks for the input...

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...