Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all never thought about this and if its possible, but im thinking of flying over east next week to buy a car, and was actually thinking while im at it, drive the car back to perth myself and make it a road trip instead of getting it shipped here, would cost me the same with fuel i know but would be more itneresting. anyway.....

My question is...is there any way to disable a turbo on an r34? maybe pull some boost hose out or sumthing? seems abit useless for the turbo to be constantly spooling on a 3000km journey.

Any ideas?

cheers

Edited by supraaah
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/144505-is-it-possible-to-disable-a-turbo/
Share on other sites

cruising it will probably not even be making positive pressure, it will be fine.

the way to 'disable' it would be to wire open the wastegate.

well lets just say im in 5th gear and not quite doing the speed limit, it would be spooling up abit wouldnt it? i mean the nallabor plain is a long road my foot might accidently get stuck on the accelerator.

any idea where the wastegate is? and if that would be a viable option?

BTW- i have an external wastegate on my supra (50mm chinese HKS copy) which has seized open, and my turbo still spools up, so wouldnt that be the same principal ur on about? in which case turbo still spools.

Edited by supraaah
well lets just say im in 5th gear and not quite doing the speed limit, it would be spooling up abit wouldnt it? i mean the nallabor plain is a long road my foot might accidently get stuck on the accelerator.

any idea where the wastegate is? and if that would be a viable option?

BTW- i have an external wastegate on my supra (50mm chinese HKS copy) which has seized open, and my turbo still spools up, so wouldnt that be the same principal ur on about? in which case turbo still spools.

if your wastegate is seized open how are you getting boost ? dont they vent excess boost ? meaning if its open before you reach set boost level it wont go anywhere

you would use more fuel by "Disabling" the turbo for your trip than you would using the thing.. and even if your cruising along at 160kph you shouldnt be seeing much boost to maintain a cetain speed if any at all

remember.. if you disable your turbo it will be a gutless bucket of junk to drive!!!

Edited by rb26s13
You're nuts mate. If you don't want a functioning turbo don't buy a turbo car. If you do buy one just drive it. That's what they were built for.

I second this. Drive the thing, you will soon find it doesn't just boost when on steady state cruise.

Best way to disable a turbo? Tip a handful of shotgun pellets down the air intake. Guaranteed to work :laugh:

I agree with the majority of opinion here - on cruise, the turbos are simply "spinning in the breeze" - you should find that the engine is still under vacuum.

If you disable the turbos, and you find yourself in a "sutuation" (eg misjudged how much time/distance you have to overtake a B-double), then you won't have the turbos to assist you in your time of need.

Just leave the damn things alone.

i would have to agree, on the simple fact that you are driving across a desert in a car that you aren't familiar with. you don't know if the thermostat or clutch fan is working properly. so you run the risk of cooking it on the way. at 100kmh there would be plenty of air going through the radiator, but it could still get rather hot. and if something breaks you could be stuck in the middle of nowhere.

to those of u with helpfull and productive comments ...thanks, to the rest of u no one asked u to comment if u dont agree, notice i said "just an idea" i own a supra (hence my avatar) with different turbo setup and different gear/diff ratios, doing 160 even in sixed my turbo is spooling up quite abit, now as a newbie to the r34 i have never driven one, im buying it on my brothers behalf. Once again, thanks to those with productive comments :)

dont be so one sighted, there are different caars out there, if an r34 wont be spooling up at that speed, doesnt mean others wont...thats why i asked

no car would spool up at light cruise at 100km/h

even at 130kmh. the turbo has no relationship to road speed

it only cares about exhaust gas, which is derived from engine load

load the engine up, and it will wind up

the turbo will only spool if you open the throttle

engine load makes exhaust gas, exhaust gas makes the turbine spin

so once more

no car will make boost unless you pull the throttle cable enough

it wont under any circumstances staring winding in 12psi if you are just light crusing along the highway

supraaah - serious answer is that you will not be boosting at all infact you will have negative boost ie. vacuum. at cruise - which is most of the time so you will be just fine in the fuel economy department.

Also there is very little increase in fuel consumption and a lot more efficiency to be had from using the turbo when you are accelerating.

If you are wanting fuel economy what counts is how long you can maintain a cruising speed vs accelerating time. So if you drive in a way that you brake less and therefore don't have to accelerate back up to speed you will get more fuel economy. Accelerating hard onto the freeway will not see you use more fuel! What you will get is better power to weight ratio output from your lighter engine which has a turbo instead of a larger and heavier engine.

Once you drive it, check out the boost guage, this will show the boost negative or positive. Its definately extremely negative when you are cruising.

Do try to drive when accelerating with the rpm in the powerband where your engine is most efficient ie.over 2200rpm.

Don't forget the energy is used to get you up to speed and lost in braking. How hard you accelerate so long as you aren't going to brake for a while especially makes almost no difference to the fuel economy.

So feel free to use that boost to get you up to speed but try to maintain the speed without having to brake. If that means driving slower to make it through all the lights in the city without braking or coming up to a lower speed so when you do brake you don't lose as much energy from your last acceleration thats the way to go for fuel economy.

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...