Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Was it hard to modify the inlet manifold?.

I've seen that done a few times but haven't seen the results or whether they create problems.

Have heard alot of ppls thoughts on them but no real world experiences.

PS: does tripleG have something to do with this motor?

It was the .82 a/r.

The specs are some where in the damn long thread, I rememeber the total power made was somewhere around the 250rwkw mark, which sounds a little low when I've also heard of them topping around 300rwkw. :)

Do you think the SB8006 should be able to keep up 1.06?

With the GT30 I don't think it was the compressor side of things causing a problem, I think it was more so the exhaust side dropping VE.

they will rev to what you want, so will any engine, it just wont be that good for it...

I dont know why people think another 500rpm or so is alot more, or will achieve something- its does relatively nothing!!!

A well built rb30 will rev to 7.5k all day; an rb26 only revs to 8k (standard), maybe 8.5k with good pistons and over 9 with a forged crank. Sure 9k now thats alot more, but buy the time you have a forged crank you could of built a billit main girdle for the rb30 and molloyed your crank and have the rb30 reving around 8.5-9k as well.... Another note an rb26 with stock cams stops making power at 7200 so what the point reving it to 8k you achieving nothing!!!

You have to remember it is a 3L you dont need to do that to make power, for example the guys in the states are reving 2j 3L toyo motors to around 7.5-7.8 and making 800hp at the wheels.

In short your cams wont let the engine rev harder only change the rev characteristc of the engine!!!

for an RB25/30 i would never use a GT30 or GT35/40 with a smaller A/R on the turbine than 1.06

people use them on 400+hp RB30's with the 1.06 and have 15psi by 3500rpm. with a head that's flowing 30% more the .82 or anything less is going to be a large restriction in terms of back pressure. go the 1.06 or bigger IMHO. a friend has a 25/30 which (when it was running) used a TO4E with a 1.33 exhaust housing from a rotor. it made 20psi no worries and had huge top-end stonk, but did not feel laggy at all. there is quite simply enough torque off-boost to get you there quick as a flash anyway, unless you're drifting and need the response i'd use a large exhaust A/R on an engine like this.

I'm Just about to put the rest of my parts that I have been colecting for a while onto the car.

I'm just trying to decide on 2 things. What size injectors to go 550's or 600's and weather or not I want a Exhaust Cam gear. Is it worth putting one onto the RB30's at all?

StockyMcStock.

I know of a RB30DET making around 320rwkw using a GT35R .82.

That only just makes 1 bar by 3500rpm on the road accelerting as you would in gear, by 4000rpm it will make any boost you throw at it.

Big exhaust a/r's scare me. I think the Rb20DET mentally scard me.

Comparing a/r's doesn't give the same result.

For example a .82 GT35R creates the same amount as back pressure and flows the same as a 1.06 GT30R. Imagine a 1.06 GT35R. :)

I guess all you can do is select the exhaust a/r to match the power output.

My thinking is its no good going a GT35R 1.06 rated to flow 700hp when you are only going to use 500-600hp. A GT35R .82 apparently flows 620hp where the GT35R .62 apparently flows 550hp or just over 500hp, I forget the exact figure.

General Street driving results in less time for the turbo to spool.

So 3500rpm any boost you dial in is more likely to be 4000rpm+ depending on the gear and he is running a huge 4" exhaust. :)

The boost characteristics I think I will still settle on at least a .82.

If I like it I will stick with it if not I will drop to a .62.

Peak power really doesn't interest me. Which is why I went the 3ltr.

A little quote from the thread.

it will be very similar, the .82 was 23hp down at peak power for me compared with the 1.06 both at 25 psi. but the .82 came in sooner and much more violently.

Some food for thought.

I have trimatic with 3500 stall and it is just instant wheel spin, I'm only running 10 degrees timing thoughout hole rev range, its hardly driveable on the street.
I found the .82 housing to be very hard to drive at the track due to 1/4 throttle being 90% hp at 4000rpm up, so it was very hard to drive it off the turns (I wish I got that race meeting on video) it was just on or off like the grp A Sierras were, one particular part of the track has a nasty left hander that you go around at about 150 - 160kph and then get back on the gas for a while before a hairpin, anyway I left it in top (3rd) round that corner, fully straightened up and gave it like 30-50% gas and it would just light up the tyres lap after lap (with 18 psi), thats with 265 dunlop slicks that were up to temp. now with the 1.06 I can feed the power in as I want (within reason for a turbo car) and can eliminate wheelspin whilst still pushing the car and now its running 25 psi so that shows you the difference that it made for me.

I suppose... the 1.06 may be a nicer option.. 10psi at 3000rpm would still have the rb30det going fairly hard. Depends on the efficiency. Might have to check out the compressor map to see what its doing at 3000rpm, 10psi on the rb30.

If you want to see what the 35 is like on the track rather than a dyno, here is a vid of HSVSUX. Think it is the 1.06, but can't remember exactly.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/dialup_v90_user...SUX_one_lap.mpg

Note:If you want both speakers to work, open it on "mplayer2.exe" and then go into the properties and choose "2nd channel" makes both mono then and sounds better.

I must say I like the corner exit around the 50sec mark. :)

I've done a couple of calcs. With the same VE it appears the Ford 4ltr swallows as much air at 5250rpm as the 3ltr does at 7000rpm.

The XR6 turbo may be a near perfect match for the RB30DET. If it small comp cover poses a probelm with the rb30 at high rev's the .7 a/r comp cover could then be bolted on.

hrmm.. I might take the plunge and grab one of these xr6 turbo's.

The .5 comp cover may actually work quite well with the 3ltr considering it will make peak power on the stock cams around the 6000rpm mark. Maybe slightly more if I'm lucky. ;)

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...