Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

mre, don't u find that after about 6500 rpm the power tends to ease off a bit? i back off the accelerator at about 6000rpm and so it usually reacts by 6500rpm and changes then i floor it again...seems to keep the car in optimum torque range but i think this causes you to lose boost. only really works for 1st -> 2nd gear but just thought someone else may have used this approach...

Well I took my car to CES Racing in Bris to get my exhaust changed and we did a dyno to show before and after. It wasn't in Shootout mode just normal and it got 146rwkw completely stock. The car is just a few days old and nothing has been touched. I thought this is a bit hight for a stock gts specially an auto, is it?

Also they hooked a boost gauge up just for the dyno and it only runs 5psi when it should be like 6 or 7psi?

Well I'm not complaining but yeah the twin dump full exhaust should be a good boost. Also getting the car dynoed after the exhaust tomorrow so will be interesting to see how much better it is... I cant wait :rolleyes:

Plus next friday I'm getting the S-AFC II and the ebc installed and tuned as well. Will probaly run the boost to at least 12psi. Anyone think over 190rwkw with the auto is possible with only these mods?

Well I got quite a surprise when it made 177rwkw with the new exhaust. Had no idea it would give that much more.

I couldn't get the dyno sheet cause the shop was already shut when I picked it up and I just picked it up from the front but yeah so far completely stock automatic r33 except the exhaust.

Could it of been the dyno? It was a Bosch Power Test dyno. Does this matter or affect it?

From what i have seen the C.E.S twin dump systems seem to make similar top end to other 3" systems but they seem to make more mid-range power.

My gf's auto S14 ran a best of 13.759@102mph@willowbank with C.E.S 3" HPC twin dump system, O2 rush pod filter & 14psi.

It's best 60ft was 2.16 & i found that stalling it up on the line & having it just turn the tyres slowly then off the brake, i would get a little bit of wheelspin but because i had about 5psi off the line it would 60ft well.

The fastest 200sx in Oz before the green ghost was a low 12 @ 120ish mph with std auto & 3000rpm dominator convertor.

The skyline uses the same auto!

Yes 3000rpm convertor from dominator convertors, but you don't need to spend that much money to get one, you can get your std one done for $250-$300 from The convertor shop in Brisbane as i previously said. It may be an idea to even get a bigger trans cooler for longevity. And change the trans oil @ least every 20000km with genuine Nissan oil which is a synthetic, we get ours from the local Nissan dealer & just take in a 5L container & they fill it from there 44gallon drum. It only takes about an hour to change it, Its a good idea to remove the pan & clean the mesh filter as well, but make sure you clean it all perfectly as you don't want ANY crap getting into the internals of the auto, & from memory the gasket was about $50. My mate has been using Mobils auto trans replacement oil in his 300zx but changes it every 10000km or so which maybe another option but it is not synthetic, hence the reason he changes it more often.

i was running up to 12 psi boost on mine.

I have heard from many people that the JATCO auto gearbox in the jap cars are not good for anything over 180rwkw. You will spit it out like I did.

Get a manual. you have a 4.3:1 dif ratio.. you will get a second difference down the quarter

hi,

mines an auto with 170rwKW. it changes or bounc at around

7150 RPM.

but to be honest my stock turbo gives less after about 6500.

when i used to run i backed off at just before redline and the box quickly shift, then i hammer it again (you will feel that the clutch packs will bites much harder then letting the computer shift.

i would not recommend high stalling the converter if the car is going to be drove regularly as it is already bloody thirsty!!!

do what MRE did of holding the handbrake as well when launching

and yes!!! AUTOs are much quicker than everyone thought!!!!

ron

Hey Ron, yeah they are quicker then I thought it'd be :)

But I have 177rwkw although I have a big flatspot at 110 where my power is completely linear upto this point but drops to 60rwkw which sucks. Then by 140kph its back up and by 180kph its at 177rwkw.

This is a really annoying dip but I dont go past 110 often but I think its something to do with the stock bov. Does anyone know what could cause such a dip? I think its around the gear change.

And I feel the most power over 6000rpm... heh its weird. Apparently I dont reach my max boost efficiency with my turbo until then, according to the guy who dynoed it. Im only running 5psi.

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...