Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Guest INASNT
Originally posted by ice180

1992 180sx

301 rwkw same dyno as SAU

12.3 at 100mph at Heathcote, backed off past half track due to car getting very wayward.

1.7 60ft and 7.6 sec at 90mph to half track.

will be back when gearbox is fixed and with front runners.

damn ice i thought u would have got better than that!!!

were u driving or sum1 else?

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thks dude as I said had to back off at half track I couldn't control it as it was getting very wayward, full throttle was probably less than 50% of the run... We will be back with proper front runners std front suspension - it was way to low, and the gearbox input and output shafts re done... If you look at the time and speed to half track plus the 60ft indications are there that it should be good for a ten, plus the terminal speed was very low for a 12.3 which indicates good acceleration until I backed off.... I'd rather take the car home it one piece than put it into the wall...

Guest INASNT
Originally posted by ice180

thks dude as I said had to back off at half track I couldn't control it as it was getting very wayward, full throttle was probably less than 50% of the run... We will be back with proper front runners std front suspension - it was way to low, and the gearbox input and output shafts re done...   If you look at the time and speed to half track plus the 60ft indications are there that it should be good for a ten, plus the terminal speed was very low for a 12.3 which indicates good acceleration until I backed off....  I'd rather take the car home it one piece than put it into the wall...

funny thing is that after the dyno day when they gave your 180 a fang around bayswater they got upto 100mph 2!!:burnout:

CAR:

SR20DET S13

MODS:

T28

Blitz Pod Filter

Custom Dump, Front Pipe (3.5")

High Flow Cat

HKS Hiper Exhaust

Turbosmart Type 1 @ .8 Bar

HKS BOV

16" Wheels on 225/50 Street Tyres

DYNO RESULT:

21/06/02 140.7 rwhp on SST Dyno Dynamics Dyno (had split vacuum hose)

06/02/02 178.0 rwhp same Dyno without BOV

QUARTER MILE TIME:

13.616 @ 102.27 mph (2.28 sec 60")

Just fitted FMIC, having major boost spikes, and hitting AFM cuts hmmm :D

Only had the BOV put on a couple of days before the last dyno. The BOV is fine, it was just that one of the old vacuum hose got hard and split severely. Full boost came on late and didn't hold full boost for very long, peaked at 12psi then dropped to 10psi. The 13.6 sec run was done the weekend after the last dyno, had already replaced the split hose.

FORD CAPRI TURBO

BIGGER INTERCOOLER

HI-FLOWED STD TURBO 2MM BIGGER COMP WHEEL

3" EXHAUST

UNIFILTER POD

CHIPTORQUE CHIP

121KW@TYRES

[email protected]

0.607 REACTION

2.32 60FT

6.096 330FT

9.187 660FT

STUPID ME CHANGED INTO 5TH B4 THE FINISH

PREVIOUS RUN DID 99.8MPH/14.3/2.4 60FT

18/08/01 @ WILLOWBANK

CAR HAS OPEN CENTRE BUT I USED SOFT COMPOUND RETREADS

STILL SPUN SINGLE WHEEL BADLY

Here is mine.....

CAR:

R32 GTR

MODS:

rebuilt RB26DETT all new internals

1mm oversized forged pistons

port polished head, steel gaskets etc

oil restrictor to head

sump baffle

Apexi PFC

700cc injectors

fuel pressue regulator

Apexi Hybrid intercooler

adj cam gears

Nizmo/Garrett N1 BB Turbo's

HKS Dump pipes

custom made tuned length twin 2.25 inch engine pipes

into 3.5inch collecter

HKS Hiper exhaust 3.75inch (95mm)

OS Giken twin plate clutch with lightened flywheel

whiteline suspension kit

1.15 Bar Boost (at moment will take upto 1.7bar, injector cycle

at 64% at this boost)

DYNO RESULT:

268 Rear Wheel Kilowatts (Hills motorsport)

same engine at 10psi (not tuned, but dynoed at 195rwkw)

on g-tech 0-100kph 4.73 and 1/4 12.95 two people full tank)

QUARTER MILE TIME:

Not formally run yet

Originally posted by ONARUN

:confused:  

what gives?

not enough traction? no suspension?

suspension stock and traction was no good that day.

the 14.10 was during the day while the 14.01 was at night, i was having heat problems with the cooler so let her be after only afew runs.

hrmm..

Thats an interesting figure skyzeer33.

As you can see by my sig i'm getting 156rwkw with boost dropping to around 11-12psi.

156rwkw = around 210rwhp.

So with the less weight of the R32-T I should be pulling in to the 13's.

Well maybe thats why I only just beat Andy's 33 GTR with a launch some where around 5000-6000rpm. :shake:

gt2530 turbo in a few weeks so it should get interesting then :D

I'll post my 1/4 run once I get the turbo.

Yes..

I am getting an adapter made up.

:)

And the Dump pipe also has to be modified which isn't to much of a hassle.

Should be in a few weeks if all goes well.

Thats the partial reason why I didn't go on the cruise this weekend.

Too much thrashing on a std turbo running 1 bar = Tow Home.

Which = Car off the road for 3 weeks = less money for new turbo = no turbo until probably 4 weeks.

= BAD

I'm going to get the ECU tuned from Tilbrooks so I'm really interested in the extra down low off boost power that they can tune in.

I'll see if i can get a dyno run from like 1000rpm or somthing to show the extra power down low. (BEfore and After)

  • 1 year later...
OK guys,

CAR:  

R32 GTR

MODS:  

Trust Airinx Filter Kit

Trust MX front pipes (2 x 75mm into 1 x 80mm)

Hi Flow 3"(80mm) Cat

Buddy Club Racing Spec III Exhaust (89.1mm through)

HKS Slide Cam Pulleys (cam gears) - IN and EX

Custom Bleed Valve

1.1 Bar Boost

DYNO RESULT:  

240 Rear Wheel Kilowatts on RacePace Dyno Dynamics Dyno

QUARTER MILE TIME:  

11.573 @ 117.89 mph (1.712 sec sixty foot)

Shaun.

Guys, I know this is old thread, but is the above "posted by" Shaun AKA HiRisk for real?? 11.5 Qtry Mile @ 240rwkw, on stock turbo's?

I haven't run a qtr time but my car reads like this..

CAR:

R33 GTR Series 3

MODS:

HKS Pods

Front Pipes (2 x 50mm into 1 x 75mm)

Cat Back "I think 80mm"

Stock Cat

Apexi Power FC

Cam Gears

Turbosmart Bleed Valve @15psi Boost

DYNO RESULT:

270 Rear Wheel Kilowatts on RacePace Dyno Dynamics Dyno

QUARTER MILE TIME:

Unknown??

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...