Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'll be frank and say this not for an RB series motor, but rather an SR20DET...I have gotten it tuned recently to the current power level however I have a problem with the power band dropping off too much at high RPM...

The current specs for the head are as follows:

Solid lifter conversion - so the ramp rate of the cams are different to the hydrolic type cams..

hks step 3 264 inlet cam

hks step 3 272 exhaust cam

1mm oversized exhaust valves

HKS valve springs - coil bind is not an issue - its been checked and came up good

The turbo is a modified Apexi RX6 unit with a bigger compressor wheel, .80 A/R exhaust turbine with 67mm exhaust wheel...so it should not be dopping off boost or power top end wise...

Now the cam gears are currently set on 4 deg advanced on the inlet and 3 deg retard on the exhaust, i just took pretty much a stab in the dark with these settings...

The boost controller is an AVCR and I have no idea why the boost curve looks like that... :S

With this current power i ran a 13.1@125mph recently at willowbank with a 2.5 60 foot... :S

What would you guys recommend i change the cam gears to to get my power curve to keep on keepin' on...

Here is the dyno printout:

post-5459-1162101787.jpg

Edited by TurbostyleR
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/140888-cam-gear-problem-dyno-graph-inside/
Share on other sites

hey there mate, your boost control has too much sensitivity setting I'd say. Sort that out first as Nismoid suggested. The upper power drop off you see there seems to be fairly typical with the SR20, at least the ones I've seen/tuned on the dyno. Cam lobe center angle seems to be the key with any cam gear tuning.

The tighter the lobe center the better higher RPM flow & therfore torque will be.

Unless you time the cam gears to the crank so you know the lobe center angle to start with, any changes will be a try it and see whats happens affair.

Also can you post your dyno graph showing the torque please as this can be more helpful to see what is going on in the engine and its peak efficency point.

Hope this helps,

Mike

Edited by The Alchemist

Thanks Mike for your comment, much appreciated.

The boost controll issue is going to be taken care off with a bigger wastegate spring as the current one is too small and the avcr duty cycle is pretty much on the limit of where it should be.

I dont have any graphs showing torque unfortunately.

In regards to "tighter the lobe center the better higher RPM flow & therfore torque will be" What do you mean by tight, i dont understand all this lobe center stuff... :S

need a diagram really to properly explain, if you do a search for Cams + "lobe center" on google you will find many sites showing a couple of cams set up with a circle 360 degrees around it and a centerline drawen down the middle of each cam lobe 2 the center of the circle. The angle between the lobe centers becomes an obvious thing.

The smaller (tighter) the angle is the more the cylinder head will tend to flow better at higher RPM. Its to do with the decrease in time allowed for air to pass through the head as RPM increases you see.

This increases the overlap (the time the inlet and exh valve are open for at the same time) which allows more air at higher RPM to pass thru the head. Complicated eh :) Anyway, small changes of a degree or 2 can have a substantial effect on the way the engine produces it torque and where it produces its torque. Using factory cam settings as per the timing marks with adj wheels on zero zero, the lobe centers tend to be too wide at say 114 degrees which is why you read about everyone adv the inlet and ret the exh which tightens the lobe centers and improves turbo response and overall torque. A good thing. The problem is that the other important cam setting is the overall relationship between the cams and the crank. Once you get the best lobe center angle you can move on to the adjusting the inl & exh cam together either advancing or retarding them. This moves the torque curve up the rpm or down the rpm range. All fine tuning but all worth it in the long run. Don't get to keen on the light and mid load tuning either cos this all changes when you change the cam timing and often has to be done again

Mike

Thanks Mike for the explanation I really appreciate it!

I dont think it was losing traction on the dyno, but its a good point, I will put it on another dyno and see if it does the same thing..

On a sidenote I took it to the track tonight as is and reeled off an [email protected] think that dyno reads a little low...

Thanks Mike for the explanation I really appreciate it!

I dont think it was losing traction on the dyno, but its a good point, I will put it on another dyno and see if it does the same thing..

On a sidenote I took it to the track tonight as is and reeled off an [email protected] think that dyno reads a little low...

dude thats an impressive mph.

isnt that good for low 10's?

nice one.

Jeremy

Thanks Mike for the explanation I really appreciate it!

I dont think it was losing traction on the dyno, but its a good point, I will put it on another dyno and see if it does the same thing..

On a sidenote I took it to the track tonight as is and reeled off an [email protected] think that dyno reads a little low...

Wheel spin usally happens at max torque point which is well before it starts to loose power, but looking at the mph and the power they deffiently dont match.

Could be a tuning issue possibly a who in the ign map?, also try bringing the intake back to 0deg and leave the ex at -3.

If none of that works then you have a restriction somwere maybe start with basics, exhaust system?

altho in saying that it does hold boost well you just need to turn the F/B Speed down or even turn it off to fix the mountain like boost curve...

By the look of that i would have said that your lobe centres are too tight. You've got to remember that in tightening your lobe centre's your reducing your power band. Also as cameron said you feedback speed is set to high - thats why your boost is oscillating.

Edited by rob82

awesome info guys thanks alot for that its really appreciated...

Im getting a bigger wastegate spring soon so the duty isnt up around the 60s for 1.3bar of boost...

the dyno does read low for my car, i dont know why but my car never reads right on it...on 300rwhp the car ran 124mph trap speeds, and now on 365rwhp im running 130mph trap speeds...

definately cant wait to fix the boost and power band up and go back to the track and crack a 10!

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...