Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Nice work Dale.

Sounds like a good package.

If I was to upgrade I would think about this.

Are you sticking with the Rb25 AFM and standard injectors?

Have you got a PFC?

How much did the turbo sey you back if you don't mind me asking?

Thanks

Is this what you got?

http://www.horsepowerinabox.com/HPIAB2/prod414.htm

Currently running the std AFM, but suspect that I will get better/more accurate full load tuning with either a Z32 or Q45 - higher voltage scale. Injectors are S15 specunits, nominal rating of 480cc but I believe at stock pressures delivering 450cc.

Yes, the PFC is fitted and in my opinion, the essential key to the whole upgrade route. Other ECUs are available and just as good, the importance is to have freedom in adjusting the fuel and ignition strategies.

The turbo, as per pictures, uses stock Nissan housings on a Garrett core 446179-31 CHRA. You may see it referred to as a SB8031. Check the turbobygarrett.com site for full details.

The link you have picked shows the full Garrett unit with their housings and the T25/5 bolt inlet/outlet flange that makes fitment to a Skyline more difficult.

Cost-wise, check my last post. The seller I bought from was Turbo Australia, operating out of Brisbane. Depending where you are, any of the other reputable sellers (GCG, MTQ, etc) can replicate what I got. There is no rocket science in the machining, but I believe there is some science in matching the specs to intended application.

cheers

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Currently running the std AFM, but suspect that I will get better/more accurate full load tuning with either a Z32 or Q45 - higher voltage scale. Injectors are S15 specunits, nominal rating of 480cc but I believe at stock pressures delivering 450cc.

Yes, the PFC is fitted and in my opinion, the essential key to the whole upgrade route. Other ECUs are available and just as good, the importance is to have freedom in adjusting the fuel and ignition strategies.

The turbo, as per pictures, uses stock Nissan housings on a Garrett core 446179-31 CHRA. You may see it referred to as a SB8031. Check the turbobygarrett.com site for full details.

The link you have picked shows the full Garrett unit with their housings and the T25/5 bolt inlet/outlet flange that makes fitment to a Skyline more difficult.

Cost-wise, check my last post. The seller I bought from was Turbo Australia, operating out of Brisbane. Depending where you are, any of the other reputable sellers (GCG, MTQ, etc) can replicate what I got. There is no rocket science in the machining, but I believe there is some science in matching the specs to intended application.

cheers

hey dale,

i've been following this upgrade path of yours and noticed that there haven't been any updates since your last one.

how did u go, have u managed to tune the engine with more boost?

the reason i ask is b/c i am considering this same combination for my R32 GTS-T (RB20DET).

i look forward to your updated info.

hey dale,

i've been following this upgrade path of yours and noticed that there haven't been any updates since your last one.

how did u go, have u managed to tune the engine with more boost?

the reason i ask is b/c i am considering this same combination for my R32 GTS-T (RB20DET).

i look forward to your updated info.

no updates i guess. :P

  • 5 months later...

Dragging up the original thread, it's been a while as I learned about tuning through the Datalogit + wide band input.

I'll let the graphs largely tell the story, but add the following:

boost control with the $30 boost bleeder is not super smooth - fluctuations are evident, and there is a gradual drop away at the top end. I will look at changing boost control in the next couple of months, as a means to improving that torque dip @ 4000rpm

The torque dip is also going to be attacked by trying an adjustable exhaust cam gear. I fitted it just prior to the dyno run but there is no way I could get in to adjust things while it was all hot. Happy to do that another day.

AFR work was all done prior to dyno runs, with the only changes made being ignition timing. The richness at the very top end was intentional, to promote longevity. My target above 5600 was 11.8, so there will be a little work there yet to be done. Might pick up a couple of hp there, and with some effort I hope to see the power curve remain flat rather than nose over.

Finally, my maths proved to be pretty good. I had actually calculated 290hp @ 14.5psi @ 6100rpm @ 12:1 AFR, using Sydneykid's observations of typical 2wd drivetrain losses. Further checks of my logged injector duty cycles suggested somewhere between 285-295hp, again using the rated flow of injectors and the power levels that would support. Overall satisfaction is still high :(

post-19642-1172265599.jpg

post-19642-1172266048.jpg

Before/after shows the results of 9.5psi boost vs 13psi + some tuning.

Edited by Dale FZ1

Not bad at all dale, you've done well. I can't get over how flat that AR is - and you tuned on the road!

I don't think 13psi is enough though, get 15psi - 16psi into her and you'll get a better figure.

There are also a few recent developments in direct fit turbine housings for RB20/25 , GCG has had one cast up in (I think .70 A/R) and is supposed to be dimensionally same as RB25 houing ie std T3 flange and dump side flange . I think one of the Victorian mobs has a similar thing but can't remember who .

My latest research is into twin scroll housings to try to get similar response but with a GT30 turbine based turbo ie Real GT3071R or GT3076R 52T though this is not going to be a budget option .

Cheers A .

Are the rev's displayed at the bottom accurate?

Assuming they are a bit out you may benefit from messing with the VCT switch off point to remove the dip in the power. Atleast you know it's got nothing to do with the af ratio.

If I can get the boost control more even, I would entertain the idea of trying around 15psi. Beyond that, this compressor spec just runs out of flow. You end up running shaft speed increase of 10 - 15000rpm to pull another psi, so it starts to compromise the life of the turbo.

Adrian I could have gone to a VG30/R34 turbine housing which has a larger A/R but basically went away from that one because it would have compromised transient response. As is, the boost transition is about 150rpm different from a stock unit, and roll on / roll off throttle response above 2500rpm is far superior. So I suspect any other larger housings would be a retrograde step away from my performance requirements. As you know a fat hp number is nice, but not much good on the road if it won't respond quickly.

I'll get the cam adjustments made and check the difference this week.

Perhaps someone with the experience (Sydneykid??) might have a suggestion what amount of exhaust retard typically works best?

Are the rev's displayed at the bottom accurate?

Assuming they are a bit out you may benefit from messing with the VCT switch off point to remove the dip in the power. Atleast you know it's got nothing to do with the af ratio.

Yes, the dyno was calibrated off the FC Logit software so rpm scaled correctly.

Tried a quick test of the VCT, altered from 4700 to 4000 switch point. Went backwards quite a long way and abandoned any other tests.

Nice work Dale, I am looking to do the same sort of upgrade to my S2 R33. Midrange punch and reliability over big power. Now that you have it sorted how would you rate it over the stock turbo? I am very interested as to how the boost comes on and how low in the rev range it starts building? (on the road not the dyno sheet)

Edited by Chris_R33GTSt

As per post this morning, there is about 150rpm difference on the road when it hits boost transition. Roll-on in 3rd gear previously I was showing boost @ 1600rpm, now it's 1750. ** Revised comment - easily developing 1-2psi boost @ 1650. Maybe the stocker was able to start even lower?**

That is just feeding the throttle smoothly too, not stomping on it. Comparing results on the dyno between stock and high flow are similar.

It behaves like a stock turbo, just a lot more stick. Power delivery is very easy - it's tractable in the wet, and I have no slip out of a stock clutch. My baseline dyno run with stock turbo and boost (7psi) was 228hp.

Some guys might consider it far too mild an upgrade to make them happy, but the car covers ground briskly without placing excessive demands on driver skill.

Edited by Dale FZ1

awesome work. I love what you said above, about not expecting to finish it in 1-2 days. That's so true.

If the skyline is your daily driver, it'd be really hard to start working on it on saturday expecitng ot be able to make an appointment for work on monday

Tried a quick test of the VCT, altered from 4700 to 4000 switch point. Went backwards quite a long way and abandoned any other tests.

To set the VCT up optimally you set the vct switch point to an rpm point that you won't reach (8000rpm for example)

Adjust ign and afr's around the 3500rpm+ point optimally. It only takes 10minutes or so to do this. Then give it a power run,

Move the switch point to 3000-3500rpm and give it another power run. Overlay the two graphs and there's your absolute optimal switch point for the given setup.

I pulled a 260hp at the wheels on my dyno run.At 13psi and stock turbo and injectors.So when i put my highflowed RB25/VG30 BB turbo on ill only expect a 35hp gain.Doesnt sound right to me.

I have my dyno sheet but for some reason cant post it so ill email to anyone if they wanna look.And hopefully put it up for me. :D

I pulled a 260hp at the wheels on my dyno run.At 13psi and stock turbo and injectors.So when i put my highflowed RB25/VG30 BB turbo on ill only expect a 35hp gain.Doesnt sound right to me.

Dave I'd say up front this unit may not suit everyone, but it's got my objectives very neatly covered. Check from the start of the thread.

From the initial point of contact, various suppliers tried to steer me towards high flow units with bigger potential power capabilities. Response and power delivery (not the peak numbers) were always my concern. Some guys focus strongly on a gain of "only" 35hp, so they get the bigger units and are happy to accept a lag penalty. As is, I changed turbo, boost level, and tuning to gain 67hp, which is a 29% peak improvement. I received advice from a Garrett engineer that I should target a minimum of 30% peak improvement to justify the expense and effort.

What you should focus on, regardless of whether you pick up 35 or 135hp from now is that you have removed the potential for ceramic turbine failure. Any upgrade is (to me) worthless in the long run if it introduces inherent unreliability.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to tell you that what is good for me will be good for you. That's your decision. Hopefully the thread + pics will give an idea of what can be involved in doing an upgrade.

Dave I'd say up front this unit may not suit everyone, but it's got my objectives very neatly covered. Check from the start of the thread.

From the initial point of contact, various suppliers tried to steer me towards high flow units with bigger potential power capabilities. Response and power delivery (not the peak numbers) were always my concern. Some guys focus strongly on a gain of "only" 35hp, so they get the bigger units and are happy to accept a lag penalty. As is, I changed turbo, boost level, and tuning to gain 67hp, which is a 29% peak improvement. I received advice from a Garrett engineer that I should target a minimum of 30% peak improvement to justify the expense and effort.

What you should focus on, regardless of whether you pick up 35 or 135hp from now is that you have removed the potential for ceramic turbine failure. Any upgrade is (to me) worthless in the long run if it introduces inherent unreliability.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to tell you that what is good for me will be good for you. That's your decision. Hopefully the thread + pics will give an idea of what can be involved in doing an upgrade.

I totally agree anyone who changes from ceramic wheels to steel is giving themselves the option for big power.In your case just this mod alone would be a big saftey barrier.Meaning with your application your turbo will last forever at the boost levels you are running.Me on the other hand my goal is to have as much power at 3500rpm.At present the stock turbo reaches 13psi at 2700rpm in 3rd gear rolling on the throttle.So i have a lot of room to play with.

It seems you have researched alot, so congrats with your result.Im sure if we were next to each other on the freeway it would be an interesing couple of squirts of the throttle.

Nice to see how a GT2871R behaves on an RB25 - sounds pretty cool. Good work and cheers for sharing results :P I had been looking into it and decided a GT30 based turbo would suit me more...

My latest research is into twin scroll housings to try to get similar response but with a GT30 turbine based turbo ie Real GT3071R or GT3076R 52T though this is not going to be a budget option .

Strange, I mentioned our discussions and decision to go with a twin scroll "real" GT3071R on a particular car and you seemed to consider it a wasted exercise?!

Nice to see how a GT2871R behaves on an RB25 - sounds pretty cool. Good work and cheers for sharing results :D I had been looking into it and decided a GT30 based turbo would suit me more...

:wacko:

There is definitely room for good responsive results with other cartridges using the zippier 53.8mm GT28 turbine. This particular unit was obviously chosen to sacrifice big numbers in preference for response, and that may not suit everyone. Search on high flow with jmac to see another good result, regardless of critical comments raised at the time about his particular cartridge.

My general view on the GT30 range is that the power numbers can be generated, and really open up the top end flow - but throttle response in a small capacity 6 cylinder RB25 is the first casualty of going in that direction. Depending on what is the primary performance objective, I think they can be a great fitment - and I have a mate who is running a GT3076.

I like to share the results of upgrades with some meaningful appraisal of how and where it's better than stock, but also to uncover where the compromises show up. Some are very harsh on the driveline or demanding on the driver. With this one, it's just that it ultimately runs out of flow past a certain boost level. :huh:

Edited by Dale FZ1
I'll get the cam adjustments made and check the difference this week.

Perhaps someone with the experience (Sydneykid??) might have a suggestion what amount of exhaust retard typically works best?

Slightly off-topic, but relevant to this upgrade and tuning to suit:

Some advice from Col-GTSX got me doing some research beyond old threads where I saw Sydneykid make consistent reference to +4 and -2 on inlet/exhaust respectively as starting points. I didn't find much meaningful info on what has worked with RB25 using adjustment only on the exhaust cam that seems to be the popular fitment due to the hydraulic advance unit fitted to the inlet cam.

Col indicated ADVANCING the exhaust cam timing in order to give a stronger bottom end response and torque, which took time to fathom. Thankfully there is some good understandable literature from Muzzy's (US bike hotrodder) about degreeing cams, and what works and why. Have a look here:

http://www.muzzys.com/articles/lobe_centers.html

What I deduce from that is that Col's advice and experiences are on the money, and anyone looking to boost the mid-range should advance the exhaust cam timing. Obviously the dyno will tell the story, but it's great to get the technical info and use that for setting a starting point.

I'll get another thread going on cam timing adjustments on RB25, but question to those who have done it, are there any obvious flaws in taking this approach when chasing mid range?

cheers

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

    • 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...