Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im with pnblight and DAN00H, its not your boost controller....it could be. But i would be checking things like cat or muffler having failed?? A restriction somewhere…

As this has now affected your car with the 2530s and now the GT-SS. Its possible even after the turbo swap he still has the cam belt off or cams way out. That would explain the lazy power and lazy response far better then the AVCR

Anyway, speak to the ppl that have a track record with these sorts of cars, be it CRD, BD4s, Unique Autosports etc...they will have a better idea having looked at the car then any of us :rofl:

It's not often that I agree with R32Nismoid, but he's right on this one. I was never able to get stable boost on my large internally gated terbs (GT-RS) with the old AVCR fitted.

By going to a dual solenoid unit I was able to get a much steeper boost raise without spiking (i.e. wastegates are kept absolutely closed until desired boost is hit and then controlled to give a very stable boost).

As previously recommended, try a manual boost controller or even direct off the actuator springs. I think the HKS kits come with 1 bar actuators from memory?

Could this be due to the way that the boost controller was operating? Was the single-solenoid config

operating as a bleed or inline? Is the dual-solenoid config operating as a bleed or inline?

I can fit my head around 'one solenoid cannot bleed off enough air' - which could be rectified with:

* adding another solenoid

* replacing solenoid with bigger solenoid

* changing the solenoid operating configuration so it is not a bleed

I'm really interested in this one! As you may have guessed, I can't wrap my head around

"You MUST have 2 solenoids" - it doesn't make any sense (but waiting to be educated :P

Thanks,

Saliya

in regard to profec B spec II, how good is it? what kind of boost can it run?? it is still a single solenoid unit, isnt it?

I run R34 GTR turbos at 0.9-1bar with a PRfec B Spec II all day everyday (my GTR is a daily, although I'd prefer it not to be really), but I never rev it hard enough to get that high on the roads very much. All my dyno graphs display a well held peak boost and it feels really smooth as the boost/rpm increases. Recently went to Drag Warz with SAUWA and had a boost spike of 20.2psi :). Everything seemed normal so I don't know if it was a boost spike or some sort of glitch.

I just didn't want the 'look at fkn me, yeah, thats right!' AVCR :P

Whats the peak power expected with GT-SS's?

As people have pointed out the areas of possible improvement may come from a tweak of the cam timing along with adjustment to the fuel & ign maps to suit. The boost controller can be a problem if not set correctly.

Always worth doing the basics too like a compression test. Do those sorts of tests when you go home after wringing it's neck at the track or dyno every time you go. Takes only a little time to do.

The group A turbo's I had were on full boost a little over 4k. They are much bigger though. So it says there is some hope.

Whats the peak power expected with GT-SS's?

300-330rwkw

depends how far you push it.

Hopefully Jan/Feb i'll be in the "push" category and we'll see what happens when you lean on them hard :P

300-330rwkw. Hopefully Jan/Feb i'll be in the "push" category and we'll see what happens when you lean on them hard :sleep:

Sweet!, I'd be happy with 400hp (305rwkw). The GT-SS's are pretty much my preferred option for a turbo upgrade. My current turbos are at full boost at 3700rpm, with a good tune could the GT-SS's come on full sooner? Not that 3700 is too high....

....Sorry for the lo-jill....

Turbos virtually come on like stock, so depending on what you class as "fullboost" be that 14psi or 25psi is what matters.

But yeah, for 400rwhp, they are what you want without a doubt.

Have a read of the FI guide, there is a link to "first set of turbos" or something like that for the RB26 parts.

Lots of info in that one

  • 3 weeks later...

Just an UPDATE everyone.

It was the boost controller! Wasn't set up right. Wheeeee!!! Much more response, a whole lot smoother on boost too. Now to take it to the track again! Shame it's so damn hot at the moment.

Cool glad to hear shes all good again

so that could mean that the lag in my car (stock turbos, 1 Bar @ 4200) could also be the controller

will have to look at that

RellikZephyr

EDIT: Amazing!! Guess what the problem with mine was DUN DUN DUNN!! The Boost Controller as well

All is good

Yay for me!!

Edited by RellikZephyr

good stuff, very glad to hear it's sorted now. Is it making more power too? I'd love to see a graph of it now. I was a bit shocked with the initial graph, as my GTR makes the same power, with 32 turbos, stock cams, stock dump, stock front pipes, stock IC etc and has full boost around 3500 rpm (1bar) and makes 270rwkw. it also runs a little richer at around 11.5:1 for some added piece of mind at the track (i'm not keen on 12:1 and above for RB on track).

your thing should be an animal now :P

good stuff! fingers crossed we see a massive improvement. I do still think 12:1 is just a whisker too lean up top (rpm wise) for a moderate power GTR that is bound to see some spanking at the track. if it were my car I'd be looking for something in the 11.5-11.8 range to give a bit more margin for kaboom. a little bit extra fuel does have a small cooling benefit too (just dont go too far).

how's it going? I finally got around to scanning my last dyno runs and since I said I would post them up, I will. It should at least give you a baseline.

one graph is power and boost, the other is power and AFR.

0517001bo2.jpg

0517002ui9.jpg

yeah, lol. it comes on fast and early and stays there. profec B II and HKS wastegate actuators to thank for that i guess. I think it's quite a good graph. it's taken me a while to get there. very meaty, and lots of area under the curve. all through optimising stock gear. the only question mark is turbos as I'm not 100% sure they are stock, but power output would suggest they are, or maybe 32N1s.

wow. I just looked back at the fist page to compare graphs again and the difference is crazy. two cars with peak power figures almost the same, but at 100kmh for instance justins making around 80kw, mine is making around 160kw! at 120kmh justin is making 130kw vs 190kw... There has to be something further wrong with the set-up I think. or tuning perhaps?

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...