Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yea.. thats the go.

I had a good look at the tomei cams. You just convinced me!

I have the 0.86 turbine..

i will be fitting the greddy type plenum with the Q45 Throttle and AFM.

My fuel system is almost finished, so then I'll start on a rebuild I guess!

How much power did you make with that set up @21psi?

Cheers

Thats perrrrrrfect!

That will pull like a freight train and be so easy to drive!

I was looking to get it to build boost earlier and be very flexable.

Its not too bad now, but the bigger cubes will be welcomed!

add the effect of the cams, and other breathing stuff.. it will be quite a strong set up.

My wife gives it a squirt now and then, so I can't make it toooo unfreindly.

Besides which, it will be so much MORE fun at my skid pan days.. Useless, but fun!

I hope to put it down the strip a few times after that.

Thanks a heap for you input!

Aaron

Edited by psi

I went for the 3040 for the reason that I am never happy with the horse power...

The slightly larger turbo will give me a little bit of spare flow should that be the case again!

and I'm sure it will be!

It will take me awhile to do what I want to do, about a year I guess. But that is where I'm heading,

I have bought my list of parts with a 420~460 rear hp figure in mind.

the 3040 will be up to the tast without too much lag.

I read on a Donaldson truck mufflers site yesterday about exhaust flow,

I chrunched some numbers and damn near died! I am now upgrading the

exhaust to a full 4inch. At the moment it is 4" off the turbo and the

WG joins just before the cat. 3" cat back..

I've read alot of your posts 'Cubes' and it will be very interesting to compare the engines!

Cheers.

for 450rwhp and good response, i'd definately go the 35/40 with .86 rear. the 3040 will probably *just* do it, but it will take a lot of boost, and that's not as safe as the slightly larger turbo with less back pressure.

The difference is the gt3540 will do 450rwhp on pump fuel.

The GT3040 won't, I feel ~400-410rwhp is max on pump with the gt3040 but every dyno and individual setup is different. :closedeyes:

Hi Cubes;

you might wish to make an addition to the Guide that indicates when fitting an RB30 to an R32 GTR, the twin turbo pipe and the bonnet reinforcing does not allow the bonnet to close. I think there is an expectation out there that there is no problem.

I'm looking into fixes such as cutting away the reinforcing.

Also on the guide, it suggests a cam belt tension of 20kg as in the manual, but 20kg measured against what? in the absence of a deflection measurement f some kind i'm not sure how the 20kg is applied?

Cheers

Hey Scooby,

Cheers.. I haven't had many/any report back on the issues of the rb30dett in a gtr so appart from the small issues mentioned by Antony and Sky30 I am none the wiser. Both Antony and Sky30 have gone with a single turbo setup, the only issue they have came across is the cam belt cover fouling the bonnet which requires slight trimming of the bonnet support.

The 20kg's its been some time but I remember it was the deflection on the belt, not 100% sure I would have to check the engine manual again.

Any pics of a GTR/GTS4 setup would be nice. :closedeyes:

i know an SR20 with the 3040 and has 400+rwhp and is still going strong on Pump fuel!

The overall HP is not so critical. But throttle responce is. If I only get to 405, that will do me.

3L, cams and 3040. it will be very strong lower in the rev range.. That is exactly what I want.

Thanks for your help..

Cheers.

Aaron

i know an SR20 with the 3040 and has 400+rwhp and is still going strong on Pump fuel!

You'll find it won't have much more in it on 98ron pump fuel, 100ron pump fuel (not available here in SA) you can squeeze a little more. :thumbsup:

I believe r33_racer managed around 320rwkwish on the gt3040 on the 100ron pump fuel + nice plenum + nice exh. manifold before going watermeth and pushing 370rwkwish. :D

Hi Cubes;

you might wish to make an addition to the Guide that indicates when fitting an RB30 to an R32 GTR, the twin turbo pipe and the bonnet reinforcing does not allow the bonnet to close. I think there is an expectation out there that there is no problem.

I'm looking into fixes such as cutting away the reinforcing.

Also on the guide, it suggests a cam belt tension of 20kg as in the manual, but 20kg measured against what? in the absence of a deflection measurement f some kind i'm not sure how the 20kg is applied?

Cheers

I had never had any fouling problems.

What engine mount holes did you use on the block?

Did you use the RB26 alloy mounts or the RB30 streel mounts?

Have you redrilled the lower engine to subframe mount?

Have you spaced the subframe down from the rails?

:nyaanyaa: cheers :domokun:

I had never had any fouling problems.

What engine mount holes did you use on the block?

Did you use the RB26 alloy mounts or the RB30 streel mounts?

Have you redrilled the lower engine to subframe mount?

Have you spaced the subframe down from the rails?

:nyaanyaa: cheers :domokun:

Garymeister,

So you do redrill the lower engine to subframe mount and also space the subframe down?

If you simply bolt the sump adaptor on and then bolt it all in using the std untouched engine mounts the cam belt cover always fouls. :P 2 in SA that I know of have had the same issue and a few others through PM's in their GTR's.

Never actually heard of (through PM's and the like) the twinturbo pipe fouling apart from scooby's.

Sky30 had the same bonnet fouling issues. I believe he origionally looked at lowering the engine/subframe but decided against for what ever reasons.

my concerns with lowering the subframe would be how much of an angle will the axles/susp components change? how much more strain would this change in angle put on the susp. components and would it magnify with decent hp, 700+?

Garymeister,

So you do redrill the lower engine to subframe mount and also space the subframe down?

If you simply bolt the sump adaptor on and then bolt it all in using the std untouched engine mounts the cam belt cover always fouls. :P 2 in SA that I know of have had the same issue and a few others through PM's in their GTR's.

Never actually heard of (through PM's and the like) the twinturbo pipe fouling apart from scooby's.

Sky30 had the same bonnet fouling issues. I believe he origionally looked at lowering the engine/subframe but decided against for what ever reasons.

All of my questions are related, use the wrong engine mount holes on the RB30 block and you get fouling problems

Try and fix it with drilling the engine mounts and you get fouling problems

Use the wrong engine mounts and you get fouling problems

Keep in mind that the sump adaptor lowers the front dif (and drive shafts) 6 mm anyway.

Think about it, an RB20DET with cross over pipe (75 mm in diameter) fits under the same bonnet height as an RB26. The RB20 block and head are the same height as the RB26 block and head. The RB30 block is only 38 mm taller than the RB20/26 block, so you should have 37 mm free space.

My guess, some people use the wrong combination of bolt holes and engine mounts. Hence the questions.

:nyaanyaa: cheers :domokun:

my concerns with lowering the subframe would be how much of an angle will the axles/susp components change? how much more strain would this change in angle put on the susp. components and would it magnify with decent hp, 700+?

You are concerned with drive shaft angles from lowering the sump a few mm, but I bet you lowered your car 40 mm and didn't even think about it.

:nyaanyaa: cheers :domokun:

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...