Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

No back to back testing... I was having a tune issue prior to installing it, and couldn't have been bothered fixing it, then tearing it all out and installing the new plenum and then re-wiring it all again.

I'm using the standard throttle body.

The seat of my pants estimate tells me that its about the same as stock, as far as overall performance goes. It does make the intercooler piping about 2.5 feet shorter tho compared to how it used to be, so the usual theory's about reduced lag are true not that i've noticed...

Col - check out these couple of different sites i found just then about front facing plenums:

http://www.skylinesdownunder.com/forums/sh...ead.php?t=50962

R.I.P.S Website: http://www.ripsltd.co.nz/performance/

Plazmaman Website: http://www.plazmaman.com.au/

what power were you making when u maxed out the GTR injectors?

No idea as i never did a dyno run. Until I am happy with the cars performance i didn't see the sense of paying for a dyno run to fine tune the top end and get a power figure. Plus there is remmoving the front drive shaft and all every time i do a run.

It would easily get sideways spinning all 4 wheels in second when going down an on ramp sweeper onto the highway at about 80k's tho, so thats got to be about 330hp or so at the wheels.

Edited by GTST4Newbie

hi all first time i have added a comment.i as well have one of those inlet manifolds but with the 80mm throttle body.just in the proccess of putting the car back together as it has been repainted from white to blue.

post-29038-1152955485.jpg

post-29038-1152955625.jpg

post-29038-1152955685.jpg

post-29038-1152955719.jpg

post-29038-1152955881.jpg

Edited by wiked1

Well I did my first drag event with my GTS4 last night. I managed 3 runs before I my fuel pump started causing eratic fuel flow (its screwed)...

My second run was the "cleanest" but would have been quicker if i'd shifted to 2nd quicker. It was a 13.826 at 116.97mph.

I launched at 6000 rpm, spinning all 4 wheels off the line. The car got traction in 1st and left the line so quick I wasn't ready to shift to second. I lost about a second there, and then had lag till it spooled in 2nd. The rest of the shifts were good.

I need more practice racing, but had fun anyway. I am told you can work out HP from the MPH and vehicle weight though I have no idea how. The car is stock weight and i'm 65kg. Can anyone do the math?

I was running 20lb boost, and reving to 7000-7500. GTR 440cc injectors, at 87% duty. The car was running a full interior with the spare wheel still installed.

i just got a reply from Stryder Performance.

to melbourne i was quoted 545US landed. bout 725AUD.

perhaps u got yours mixed up with the 550AUD landed price.. coz i cant see it costing 13US bucks to you in sydney even at 395US.

anyways.. not to worry.. not my point of my post.

did u have any other issues fitting it ...have u got any pics of the factory parts fitted back up asides from teh throttle body.

thanks

Matt

Nope, no other issues fitting it. The main problem was just the water plumbing that goes under the plenum.

Given the opportunity to re-install the plenum i'd have looked got a better place to install the temperature sensors too, though they are working fine where I installed them between the lower plenum water runner, and the front radiator hose section. I'll take a few more pictures if you need it.

  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...