Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Car is 1990 R32 GTR

Power Mods 3" Turbo back zorst, Apexi Pods, Stock Turbos

Other Mods Suspension, Clutch, Aluminium Radiator

First run with stock ECU

Second run with Microtech LTX12 ECU, Bosch Coils and Ignition pack (only changes)

Was fairly surprised with result made 5 kw more with 4 psi less boost

and the 17 psi run, i was a little worried when he told me cause of stock turbos but they held no prob

Car now running 9 psi might turn boost up to 12 psi on weekend and leave it there

Boost isnt as smooth as i would like, but will prob get a Profec B-Spec II soon

All in all im quite happy, what you people think?

RellikZephyr

post-22860-1164790889.jpg

post-22860-1164791026.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/145290-power-gains-from-microtech-comp/
Share on other sites

Bloody difficult to compare when one is p and the other in kw. Those MX Dynos are happy in my experience, but not necessarily in this case.

That said you appear to have lost a bit of mid range with the low boost setting. I don't have a GTR but I wouldn't run it at 17psi on stock turbos if I had one. I think that 12-13 daily is fine.

What fuel are you using?

yeah as soon as i was told about the 17 psi i said NOOOOO and turned the boost down to 9 psi

i am running Shell V-Power 98 RON fuel

and thats why i modded the pic to include the KW reading on the HP chart

RellikZephyr

yeah the mechanic wasnt aware they were the stock ceramic turbos

luckily they held and if they didnt not my fault therefore he would have had to fix

but it has told me my stockers are in good nick

RellikZephyr

So your saying this guy will pay for your engine if it blows up when its on the Dyno ???

Tell us his details.. I bags the first tune. This guy is gona get real busy really soon.

yeah the mechanic wasnt aware they were the stock ceramic turbos

luckily they held and if they didnt not my fault therefore he would have had to fix

but it has told me my stockers are in good nick

RellikZephyr

if it blew because HE put too much boost into it

then damn right i would have made him

i never told him to set the boost that high

i had a EBC in there set to 14psi and it evendently wasnt set up quite right

so he put a manual boost controller on (to trouble shoot the EBC) and set the boost to 17 psi of his on decision

if it blew because of that and he didnt want to fix it i would have taken him to court

RellikZephyr

I would suggest its not the engine but the microtech. The resolution on those things is really poor. You just can't have a really good tune. They are great if the car is only going to run flat out (ie drag racing) but not very accurate with partial throttle and closed loop.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...