Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i think i have found a potential restriction to airflow in a series 2 stagea (manual). here are some pics of the gaskets from a series 2 Stagea and an R34 GT-t. this seems to indicate that the runners for the Stagea are smaller and i am guessing but possibly the cams are different (not verified yet) contrary to most information i had found previously. the plenum visually appears smaller. i am guessing this has been done to improve down low performance on the heavier car sacrificing some top-end!?!?

thoughts anyone?

post-5777-1154786389.jpgpost-5777-1154786408.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/128983-series-2-stagea-plenum/
Share on other sites

I thought that the general idea was that the Skyline/Stagea motors were the same in all these major aspects, whereas what you've seen here indicates what I'd call a pretty big difference. Shows you shouldn't make assumptions on these things, Nissan seem to be willing to customise their engines for various cars in quite major ways looking at that manifold difference! And obviously consider the Skyline somewhat more performance orientated, not that its a surprise I guess..

On power figures alone, the stagea s2 doesn't appear to be detuned compared to the r34GT-T.

But the findings above show that there are clearly differences between them and I'd agree with the point about more low-down power in the stagea, sacrificing some top-end. My S2 stagea (completely stock) is good off the line but runs out of puff at about 3000-3500rpm after which its a slow climb up through the revs.

Great discovery wolverine!

i think the part numbers are different. some one with FAST will be handy here (hint anyone).

i just got the car back and it has been a huge head scratcher why we were running out of puff. everything was checked or changed unfortunately that left the factory parts like cams and plenum (which we thought would be the same as an R34). we struggled to get much over 210-215 rwkw without screwing in a whole lot of boost so there was clearly a restriction.

the car finally made 237rwkw with a GT-RS turbo (with all the appropriate fruit attached to the car).

anyway i hope the next person to modify can add/confirm some of the details above.

Ah, I wondered whose car it was that John was calling me about, now I know it was yours. Big head scratch that one, my guess was cams, which I hope to confirm shortly. I didn't think of inlet differences.

post-5777-1154786389_thumb.jpg

The top gasket in that picture looks like an RB25DET NON NEO one.

If so, it still wouldn't explain the low power, R33GTST's easily exceed that. So my guess is still with the cams.

:thumbsup: cheers :P

Edited by Sydneykid

SK the top one is the neo stagea gasket as it was explained to me. the other one was from an R34 GT-t (unless i have my wires crossed).

we compared prank's plenum (S1) and it is substantially larger (visually).

UAS spoke to nissan and confirmed the cams are the same but i still have my doubts.

Edited by wolverine

Any updates?

Anyone know what the R34 GTT cams are compared to the Neo Stagea?

Whether the cams are the issue or not, which Tomie Poncams would suit the best

Type A 252 duration 9.15mm lift

Type B 252 duration 9.15mm lift

Turbo rated at 450hp

Street use

SK?

What you have there is; top, a neo gasket, bottom a non neo, r33, series one stagea, whatever gasket.

It's the neos that have the smaller runners. Previous models had bigger ones. Doesn't seem to restrict at all. I think it would help having smaller ones to keep air velocity. Ie; I think the air would expand a little in the plenum and inlet manifold then compress again going into the ports with the bigger one but with the smaller one (neo) it would keep the air more compressed all the to the ports thus requiring less effort to recompress and being ultimately less restrictive.

I've been travelling, or I would have already commented..:(

Given I have both a R34 GTX turbo and a Stagea RS4S I can say that -

a) they appear to be absolutely identical (NEO) engines - at least from the outside.

b) I don't run out of puff in the stagea at 3000-3500 revs! (as someone suggested above)

c) taking into account the 200kg difference, the engines seem to have the same power. Though the stagea is of course more grippy because of the weight, and the four wheel drive, so I think it makes up for the weight difference quite a bit by getting more power to the ground some times... They both move well when you want them to..

d) the only slight difference I had been finding was that the R34 was going on boost faster. But that has recently been tracked down to a leaky hose, so I'll see what it is like in the next few weeks…

If the engines are different in any major way I'll be a bit surprised..

Hope that helps someone.. :D

Ian

Stagea neo Rb25DET cam spec's

Inlet 236 deg 8.4 mm lift

Exhaust 232 deg 7.0mm lift

What are R34 neo spec's?

Just found the R34 spec's

Inlet 236 deg 8.4 mm lift

Exhaust 232 deg 8.7mm lift

So would the difference in the R34 exhaust cam lift be reason for the different power levels?

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

    • This is the other log file, if only we had exhaust manifold pressure - would understand what's going on a bit better   Can you take a screenshot of your wastegate setup in the Kebabtech?   Engine Functions --> Boost Control (looks like this):  
    • You just need a datalogger of some sort. A handheld oscilloscope could do it, because it will make the trace visible on screen, so you can look at the peak, or whatever you need to look at. And there are cheap USB voltage loggers available too. You could get a 2 channel one and press a button to feed voltage to the second channel at points that you want to check the sensor voltage, when you knew what the guage was saying, for example.
    • it's not the issue with making power, it's the issue with controlling boost, and this isn't the first time I've seen a 6Boost having issue with controlling boost down low.   The boost control here looks interesting.   Looking at your logs, looks like it's set to open loop boost control strategy (which is fine). We can see VCT being kept on till about 6600RPM (no issue with that). Ignition timing (I'm assuming this is E85, seems within reason too, nothing too low, causing hot EGTS and boost spiking). There's about 15 degrees of advance when your boost shoots up, however can't be this as the timing isn't single digits. I'm assuming there's no EMAP data, as I wasn't able to find it in the logs. We can see your tuner sets the WG DC to 0% after 4300RPM, trying to control boost.   My thoughts, what frequency is your wastegate set to?  AND why aren't you using both ports for better control?
    • While that sounds reasonable, this is definitely a boost control problem, but the real question is why are you having the boost control problem? Which is why I pondered the idea that there's a problem at ~4000rpm related to head flow. In that instance, you are not yet under boost control - it's still ramping up and the wastegate is yet to gain authority. So, I'm thinking that if the wastegate is not yet open enough to execute control, but the compressor has somehow managed ot make a lot of flow, and the intake side of the head doesn't flow as well as the exhaust side (more on that later), then presto, high MAP (read that as boost overshoot). I have a number of further thoughts. I use butterfly valves in industrial applications ALL THE TIME. They have a very non-linear flow curve. That is to say that there is a linear-ish region in the middle of their opening range, where a 1% change in opening will cause a reasonably similar change in flow rate, from one place to another. So, maybe between 30% open and 60% open, that 1% change in opening gives you a similar 2% change in flow. (That 2% is pulled out of my bum, and is 2% of the maximum flow capacity of the valve, not 2% of the flow that happens to be going through the valve at that moment). That means that at 30% open, a 1% change in opening will give you a larger relative flow increase (relative to the flow going through the valve right then) compared to the same increment in opening giving you the same increment in flow in outright flow units. But at 60% opening, that extra 2% of max flow is relatively less than 1/2 the increase at 30% opening. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if it doesn't because it's not the main point anyway. Below and above the linear-ish range in the middle, the opening-flow curve becomes quite...curved. Here's a typical butterfy valve flow curve. Note that there is a very low slope at the bottom end, quite steep linear-ish slope in the middle, then it rolls off to a low slope at the top. This curve shows the "gain" that you get from a butterfly valve as a function of opening%. Note the massive spike in the curve at 30%. That's the point I was making above that could be hard to understand. So here's the point I'm trying to make. I don't know if a butterfly valve is actually a good candiate for a wastegate. A poppet valve of some sort has a very linear flow curve as a function of opening %. It can't be anyelse but linear. It moves linearly and the flow area increases linearly with opening %. I can't find a useful enough CV curve for a poppet valve that you could compare against the one I showed for the butterfly, but you can pretty much imagine that it will not have that lazy, slow increase in flow as it comes off the seat. It will start flowing straight away and increase flow very noticeably with every increase in opening%. So, in your application, you're coming up onto boost, the wastegate is closed. Boost ramps up quite quickly, because that's really what we want, and all of a sudden it is approaching target boost and the thing needs to open. So it starts opening, and ... bugger all flow. And it opens some more, and bugger all more flow. And all the while time is passing, boost is overshooting further, and then finally the WG opens to the point where the curve starts to slope upwards and it gains authority amd the overshoot is brought under control and goes away, but now the bloody thing is too open and it has to go back the other way and that's hy you get that bathtub curve in your boost plot. My position here is that the straight gate is perhaps not teh good idea it looks like. It might work fine in some cases, and it might struggle in others. Now, back to the head flow. I worry that the pissy little NA Neo inlet ports, coupled with the not-very-aggressive Neo turbo cam, mean that the inlet side is simply not matched to the slightly ported exhaust side coupled with somewhat longer duration cam. And that is not even beginning to address the possibility that the overlap/relative timing of those two mismatched cams might make that all the worse at around 4000rpm, and not be quite so bad at high rpm. I would be dropping in at least a 260 cam in the inlet, if not larger, see what happens. I'd also be thinking very hard about pulling the straight gate off, banging a normal gate on there and letting it vent to the wild, just as an experiment.
    • Not a problem at all Lithium, I appreciate your help regardless. I've pulled a small part of a log where the target pressure was 28psi and it spiked to 36.4psi. I've only just begun using Data Log Viewer so if I'm sending this in the wrong format let me know.
×
×
  • Create New...