Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I cant see this being correct at all. I am pretty sure those runs were done in 4th gear hitting rev limiter 7000rpm when i backed off...

if that is true then a extra 2500rpm would mean the car would do 220km/h plus in 4th gear.. i dont think it would no way

assuming 4th gear 183km/h is 5124rpm

So they reckon bigger exhaust hey.. So i wonder if our knock will drop with a 4" system and power will increase?

If it really is the hotside...that could explain something....

i can see how the exaust side with a small exaust could cause knock but when your talking a engine that has a top mount extractor manifold and a 3" pipe with a external gate the turbo is a bit far away from the engine plus you got the 3" pipe and the external gate pipe moving air away from the engine..... hmmmm

if this is the case then im screwed. my 3" pipe is nearly hitting the air con pipes as it is... i dont even think a 3.5 " would fit with my exaust manifold.. then again ive changed manifolds since then but still. i dont want to make it bigger i still have to pass the noise test for my engineers certificate.

So they reckon bigger exhaust hey.. So i wonder if our knock will drop with a 4" system and power will increase?

If it really is the hotside...that could explain something....

Since the oulet of the turbo is 3" anyway...you can go first 90" at 3" and then straight away taper out to 3.5" or 4" whatever way you want to go. That way you wont have to worry about the lack of room.

If 5500rpm is the magic number that the power noses over, regardless of power like your saying there are a few cars that nose over at 5500rpm with 200kw, then you get cars that run 320kws and nose over, then i cant see how it is the plenum because 320kw's is flowing way more air then a 200kw so i dont see a plenum restriction.. what happeneds at 5500rpm,

vvt? (when does this step up)

duty cycle?

I know youve been around for ages cubes, i think it's a bit to wierd.

Anyone got pics of these plenums? Do they just use the stock bottom half joined to a sheet metal plenum chamber?

I don't like the way power is only shifted toward higher RPM without actually increasing it. Sure, you get more high RPM power, but you loose it in the mid range. You would get the same on road feel at similar speeds by fitting taller gears.

The plasmaman plenum uses the stock standard bottom half its just the top that you buy

www.gtr.com.au has them for sale.

Anyone got pics of these plenums? Do they just use the stock bottom half joined to a sheet metal plenum chamber?

I don't like the way power is only shifted toward higher RPM without actually increasing it. Sure, you get more high RPM power, but you loose it in the mid range. You would get the same on road feel at similar speeds by fitting taller gears.

We put 24psi through mine (2.5ltr) so thats equiv to what, 20psi on a 3ltr (very rough stab), be that on 104, not 98/100.

I was using stock cams/plenum.

If mine was working fine, and others before me have worked fine in 3ltrs im still yet to be convinced the problem lies there.

Mine was still making power @ 8000rpm if memory serves me correct on both PULP/104

On PULP i had the issues, and guess what, i was running a 1980's R31House 3" exhaust/external 45mm gate also.

Plumbing the gate is was just a no-no (i tried it). The car lost that much power as the 3" was never going to flow enough with the gate plumbed back.

So it was obviously only "just" getting by with the what it was in the 3" + Screamer setup.

I would have loved to fit a 3.5, ideally 4 all the way, but no room left. Make do with what i had... well... RPMGTR did it cause im special :sorcerer:

And i paid him teh monies

My new setup is going to see twin 2.75 exhaust so i dont have any issues like that again.

We put 24psi through mine (2.5ltr) so thats equiv to what, 20psi on a 3ltr (very rough stab), be that on 104, not 98/100.

I was using stock cams/plenum.

If mine was working fine, and others before me have worked fine in 3ltrs im still yet to be convinced the problem lies there.

Mine was still making power @ 8000rpm if memory serves me correct on both PULP/104

On PULP i had the issues, and guess what, i was running a 1980's R31House 3" exhaust/external 45mm gate also.

Plumbing the gate is was just a no-no (i tried it). The car lost that much power as the 3" was never going to flow enough with the gate plumbed back.

So it was obviously only "just" getting by with the what it was in the 3" + Screamer setup.

I would have loved to fit a 3.5, ideally 4 all the way, but no room left. Make do with what i had... well... RPMGTR did it cause im special :sorcerer:

And i paid him teh monies

My new setup is going to see twin 2.75 exhaust so i dont have any issues like that again.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with the RB30DET's. 20psi makes the same power through the rb30det's as it does on the Rb25DET's. No more no less. The head is what governs the inlet restriction not the pots/stroke.

The RB30 simply spools the turbo a hell of a lot earlier and pulls up low and mid range power as a result improving 'average' power so when you snap that next gear your making more power.

The peak power figure stays the same or very similiar.

With regards to the rb30det...

'Tuning' of the inlet system for a particular motor has always affected the rpm power band. Engine manufactures have been taking advantage of this for years. Maybe opening the exhaust right up is simply 'masking' the not suitably tuned (for piston speed, runner velocity etc) inlet plenum and runner combination.

Why doesn't the RB26 head pose the same problem on the 30det's if it really was 'only' the exhaust that was causing the problem? Surley we don't need a 3.5" exhaust for 180rwkw, well maybe we do when used with the std rb25 runner/plenum combination. :S

----------

There's recently a little discussion over on performance forums regarding dump pipe design with the new gt30/35r iw.

Consider fitting the largest dump front pipe possible, fitting up a split dump you have to go with a smaller dump, a single open mouth dump you can fit a larger dump.

Some suggest a single open mouth design is better due to a couple of reasons:

1. It creates a larger pressure differential across the turbine due to there being a larger open area directly behind the turbine.

2. The wastegate causes interference with the 'swirling' turbine exhaust gas, this interference is good as it gets the gas flowing in a laminar fashion earlier so slightly better exhaust flow.

3. A larger pipe always exhibits less 'friction'.

4. No interference with the front pipes laminar flow when the wastegate pipe joins back in.

And for the cons.

1. Possibly worse boost control due to a slight increase in backpressure on the wastegate side.

2. Possible increased backpressure directly behind the turbine wheel at WOT, but would this be negated by improved front pipe flow due to better laminar flow?

With regards to internal gate (gt35r iw); there's the suggestion that if one can only fit a 3" dump and say a 2" wastegate pipe would it not be better to simply fit a larger 3.5" or 4" open mouth dump.

But no one really knows as no one has ran say a 3.5"+ exhaust with a smaller split and larger open mouth. lol

Hi Cubes , I wouldn't mind a link to that discussion if possible .

It may also pay to go back and look at Maximum Boost and Corky's views on pipe diametre vs turbine exducer or outlet diametre . Gas speed has a lot to do with determining pipe size obviously the larger diametre means lower velocity but its still going to be highest at the most restrictive point . The easy way to measure this is to tap into the exhaust at various points along its length and measure the pressure .

I think we all know that for maximum effort power with a GT3582R your going to be using the largest 1.06 turbine housing available for the greatest flow with least restriction and less gas bypassing going on .

IMO the easiest way to make a compact dump with a healthy tube diametre is to copy what HKS did with their dump pipe for the Pro S IW housings . This would not be terribly difficult to fabricate though time consuming , has the added advantage of keeping everything at a more uniform temperature than a totally divorced tube so less likely to crack with heat cycles .

Cheers .

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...