Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

In regards to the Japanese Performance R33 GTS25t - I'd love to be reminded the 1/4mile time and ET of BU5TER which has a T51R on an RB30 hybrid.... I have a magazine article here saying it ran 10.5 @ 130mph withn 441rwkw!? Am I missing something? Thats running a drag-setup auto and I'd say with 3l it will have a torquier power delivery, and Dyno Dynamics dynos read a lot lower than a particularly high reading hub dyno. How come there aren't BS claims flying around about that time with that car?

I remember the Wild 1 Motorsports guy on here claiming big power figures from a GT3540R on their R33 and ended up doing a 10 USING NOS on their one.... and that didn't go as quick as Jap Performance either, despite the huge kick the NO2 would give it. Anyway, I know of a few cars doing 10s on pump gas with GT3540Rs - a mate of mine did a 10.7 with his EVO in full street trim (including tires) using .82a/r. Consider the .82a/r a turbo capable of getting you near 130mph on your average Japanese car on pump gas.

Edited by Lithium
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This RB25-30 combo has GT35 with .63housing because responce for drifting is its goal.

24PSI and modest tune for long life.When it was runninb 420rwhp it ran 134mph on Sava cheapo tyres.

When this car goes to the drag next we will try a harder tune but for now its close to what you want.

Lag is no ones freind.

post-1901-1170583627.jpg

This RB25-30 combo has GT35 with .63housing because responce for drifting is its goal.

24PSI and modest tune for long life.When it was runninb 420rwhp it ran 134mph on Sava cheapo tyres.

When this car goes to the drag next we will try a harder tune but for now its close to what you want.

Lag is no ones freind.

NIB... Compared to others running cams it more so resembles the 1.06 spool/torque I've seen on various rb25/30 setups.

Your 100% thats a .63? It comes on almost like a .82 with stock cams. From what I've seen. You don't have a boost curve sheet handy?

EDIT: But in saying that it is making ~250rwkw around 4200rpm which with a .82 would require in the 20+psi range. Interesting. 250rwkw at ~4000rpm. No wonder it shreds tyres. :laugh:

:thumbsup:

In regards to the Japanese Performance R33 GTS25t - I'd love to be reminded the 1/4mile time and ET of BU5TER which has a T51R on an RB30 hybrid.... I have a magazine article here saying it ran 10.5 @ 130mph withn 441rwkw!? Am I missing something? Thats running a drag-setup auto and I'd say with 3l it will have a torquier power delivery, and Dyno Dynamics dynos read a lot lower than a particularly high reading hub dyno. How come there aren't BS claims flying around about that time with that car?

Because if you done your homework you'd know I ran the 10.5 at 20psi with pump fuel, 235 radial tyres with a 1.8 60ft at 20psi I was making around 400rwkw also an auto car will always be a bit down on mph compared to the manual

hope that helps

Food for thought on the front cover 0.5 VS 0.7 Everyone just seems to ignore the front cover and only worry about the turbine housing.

Check this out. The smaller front may actually be better for average power.

http://www.fordxr6turbo.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32271

According to Garrett, the smaller front cover has a very minimal effect on power, and smaller AR's are actually better for higher boost levels. So I think I am on a winner with the 0.5 front. I was going to change it but I am not now. I think it might be better!

Compressor A/R - Compressor performance is comparatively insensitive to changes in A/R. Larger A/R housings are sometimes used to optimize performance of low boost applications, and smaller A/R are used for high boost applications. However, as this influence of A/R on compressor performance is minor, there are not A/R options available for compressor housings.

http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...bo_tech102.html

Edited by DennisRB30
I'd love to be reminded the 1/4mile time and ET of BU5TER which has a T51R on an RB30 hybrid.... I have a magazine article here saying it ran 10.5 @ 130mph withn 441rwkw!? Am I missing something? Thats running a drag-setup auto and I'd say with 3l it will have a torquier power delivery, and Dyno Dynamics dynos read a lot lower than a particularly high reading hub dyno. How come there aren't BS claims flying around about that time with that car?

Because unlike your good self, most people know what conditions this time was run under. I have photos of the smoke pouring off of the small, radial tyres even at the moderate 20psi boost level used for these passes. Are you missing something? Probably not. Just keep in mind that magazines tend to talk about the best power a car has made and the best ET/TS a car has run HOWEVER these two figures may not go hand in hand at the time.

I remember the Wild 1 Motorsports guy on here claiming big power figures from a GT3540R on their R33 and ended up doing a 10 USING NOS on their one.... and that didn't go as quick as Jap Performance either, despite the huge kick the NO2 would give it.

The car setup was atrocious for this power level. Although the run was made on slicks it was made with the factory manual transmission and was a handful to drive. Mechanical problems made a run with the Powerglide impossible at the time. When did he use the nitrous (N2O btw)? How much power did it make when it ran? You have no idea.

Anyway, I know of a few cars doing 10s on pump gas with GT3540Rs - a mate of mine did a 10.7 with his EVO in full street trim (including tires) using .82a/r. Consider the .82a/r a turbo capable of getting you near 130mph on your average Japanese car on pump gas.

How on earth does a 2-litre 4-cylinder apply to this discussion????

Not a Rb, but on a 2j ,with everything stock bar 272 cams, my mates

3540 .82 made 410rwkw on a dd dyno on pump fuel on 23-24psi.

This was maxed out with no increase if more boost was added.

So i would think around 400-410 rwkw is it 3540 .82 wise.

It ran 10.8 at 128mph in a 1600kg Mk.3 supra when it made 370rwkw. So

i think the dyno reads about right.

cheers

darren

Obviously everyone has noticed that it is a DynaPack dyno, hub style therefore no wheels and tyres, no wheelspin and no rollers. Hence higher numbers, all things being equal. It should realy be expressed as rhkw (rear hub kilowatts) not rwkw (rear wheel kilowatts) as there are no "wheels" on the car when it made that power run.

That it makes it max power at over 7,500 rpm, using a 0.82 to 1 A/R turbine is amazing, more like a miracle. More info needed...

It has Jun 260 degree cams, but they have 9.3 mm lift. Any comparison with the more common 8.X lift cams (eg; Tomei Poncams) is meaningless.

It also obviously has head work, otherwise it wouldn't make power at that high rpm. (Yep, the spec list says it does).

So removing restrictions (cams and head work) means similar airflow at lower boost level. Maybe 19 psi isn't so wide of the mark

The 10.65 for the 1/4 indicates no excess of traction, considering the mph. Nismo suspension, so I am not surprised. Around 345 rwkw would give you that sort of time.

The 128 mph indicates around 360 rwkw.

Based on past experiences, it is set to kW SAE which if I remember rightly means "at the engine" on a DynaPack. So the 450 kw less say 80 kw for losses = 370 rwkw in our usual terminolgy (Dyno Dynamics)

Summary;

ET = 345 rwkw

TS = 360 rwkw

Corrected dyno = 370 rwkw (in Dyno Dynamics speak)

Let's split the difference and say 365 rwkw, does that sound better?

:blink: cheers :P

You goto be spot on their SK,

Our R33 RB25 ran the GT3540 0.82A/R at 32psi of boost, hks 256cams with 8.8 lift no porting of the head, ran out of fuel to make extra power up top needed another 044. :sleep:

On 98octane it came out with 370rwkws and a 11.0 @ 129mph on slicks.

So to answer the theads question...

I think on race fuel and a bit of head porting you would see 400rwkws.

But you would still have to run up around the 30psi area.

So I would say it is safer to go the bigger exhaust housing.

Sydneykid

are you replying to the main question or are you just talking about the jap performance r33?

Cameron do you know what CR he was running?

There are alot of conflicting reports..

The engine had Arias piston and a 1.8mm tomei headgasket - Im unsure of the CR but if you know what comp the arias piston you could proberly work it out, Im guess somewere between 7.5:1 - 8.2:1 very low for a RB25, but this allowed us to run a consistant 32psi with out stressing the engine too much.

Dennis RB30 , thats a rather simplistic overview of the comparitive differences in alterations of Area Radius Ratio with turbine and compressor housings .

Yes changing turbine housing A/R makes a greater overall difference because this is what attempts to regulate the turbos rotating assembly speed in relation to engine speed .

Changing compressor housing A/R will alter the choke flow capacity of the compressor in relation to pressure ratio meaning maximum useful airflow flow vs boost pressure . This is how its possible to gain a bit more maximum compressor capacity and optimise it around the desired boost pressure to a degree .

It was explained to me years ago that the larger housing has less resistance to gas flow so moves a lot of gas at lowish pressure . The smaller housing has more resistance to flow so needs greater pressure to move the volume .

The thing to remember is that generating higher pressure means the turbine has to work harder so this will affect exhaust gas speed and turbine inlet pressure . Its all inter related so changes in one area will make the engine see a different world on both inlet and exhaust sides pressure wise .

Cheers A .

Dennis RB30 , thats a rather simplistic overview of the comparitive differences in alterations of Area Radius Ratio with turbine and compressor housings .

Yeah, fairly oversimplified, however I was only talking about comp AR's not rear housings. But I also linked to a real world example of a comp cover change on the XR6 site where the smaller cover seems to be much better over all than the larger one (well on an XR6 anyway). I don't know why the Garrett site only had that one small paragraph on comp covers when the site goes into a lot of technical detail in other areas.

Seems most of the RB30DET guys are getting a lot more lag with 0.82 rears than I am with a 1.06 rear and 0.5 front. I get 15psi by 3500rpm in second gear with a $200 ebay manifold (auto) probably equal to 3rd gear with a manual. According to the XR6 thread I linked to, the smaller front gives a LOT more response. Most people just ignore the front cover, or just get the biggest one possible when that may not be the best option. I'm just trying to get people to take notice of the front cover as it may have a bigger effect of the power curve than what they are led to believe.

From XR6 site. Chart is 0.5 front VS 0.7 front. As you can see it has MUCH better mid range power with some power loss in the top end, however it was running 2 psi less in the top end, and they reckon once they up the boost to where it was with the 0.7 it will "cream" the 0.7 there too. This is only one comparison and its on a 4 litre engine, but its enough to make you think twice about comp cover selection.

.jpg

Low down saw an improvement of ~55RWKW and 105Nm of Torque at a lowly ~3650rpm - Massive Improvement and only upping boost by ~3psi.

Up top at best saw a 10RWKW loss to the .70 cover, but the .50 is down ~2psi up there.. If we can get boost up in the rev range, it should cream the .70 - and my clutch which, btw is still stock and 70,oookm old

Edited by DennisRB30

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

    • See if you can thermal epoxy a heatsink or two onto it?
    • The other problem was one of those "oh shit we are going to die moments". Basically the high spec Q50s have a full electric steering rack, and the povo ones had a regular hydraulic rack with an electric pump.  So couple of laps into session 5 as I came into turn 2 (big run off now, happily), the dash turned into a christmas tree and the steering became super heavy and I went well off. I assumed it was a tyre failure so limped to the pits, but everything was OK. But....the master warning light was still on so I checked the DTCs and saw – C13E6 “Heat Protection”. Yes, that bloody steering rack computer sitting where the oil cooler should be has its own sensors and error logic, and decided I was using the steering wheel too much. I really appreciated the helpful information in the manual (my bold) POSSIBLE CAUSE • Continuing the overloading steering (Sports driving in the circuit etc,) “DATA MONITOR” >> “C/M TEMPERATURE”. The rise of steering force motor internal temperature caused the protection function to operate. This is not a system malfunction. INSPECTION END So, basically the electric motor in the steering rack got to 150c, and it decided to shut down without warning for my safety. Didn't feel safe. Short term I'll see if I can duct some air to that motor (the engine bay is sealed pretty tight). Long term, depending on how often this happens, I'll look into swapping the povo spec electric/hydraulic rack in. While the rack should be fine the power supply to the pump will be a pain and might be best to deal with it when I add a PDM.
    • And finally, 2 problems I really need to sort.  Firstly as Matt said the auto trans is not happy as it gets hot - I couldn't log the temps but the gauge showed 90o. On the first day I took it out back in Feb, because the coolant was getting hot I never got to any auto trans issues; but on this day by late session 3 and then really clearly in 4 and 5 as it got hotter it just would not shift up. You can hear the issue really clearly at 12:55 and 16:20 on the vid. So the good news is, literally this week Ecutek finally released tuning for the jatco 7 speed. I'll have a chat to Racebox and see what they can do electrically to keep it cooler and to get the gears, if anything. That will likely take some R&D and can only really happen on track as it never gets even warm with road use. I've also picked up some eye wateringly expensive Redline D6 ATF to try, it had the highest viscosity I could find at 100o so we will see if that helps (just waiting for some oil pan gaskets so I can change it properly). If neither of those work I need to remove the coolant/trans interwarmer and the radiator cooler and go to an external cooler....somewhere.....(goodbye washer reservoir?), and if that fails give up on this mad idea and wait for Nissan to release the manual 400R
    • So, what else.... Power. I don't know what it is making because I haven't done a post tune dyno run yet; I will when I get a chance. It was 240rwkw dead stock. Conclusion from the day....it does not need a single kw more until I sort some other stuff. It comes on so hard that I could hear the twin N1 turbos on the R32 crying, and I just can't use what it has around a tight track with the current setup. Brakes. They are perfect. Hit them hard all day and they never felt like having an issue; you can see in the video we were making ground on much lighter cars on better tyres under brakes. They are standard (red sport) calipers, standard size discs in DBA5000 2 piece, Winmax pads and Motul RBF600 fluid, all from Matty at Racebrakes Sydney. Keeping in mind the car is more powerful than my R32 and weighs 1780, he clearly knows his shit. Suspension. This is one of the first areas I need to change. It has electronically controlled dampers from factory, but everything is just way too soft for track work even on the hardest setting (it is nice when hustling on country roads though). In particular it rolls into oversteer mid corner and pitches too much under hard braking so it becomes unstable eg in the turn 1 kink I need to brake early, turn through the kink then brake again so I don't pirouette like an AE86. I need to get some decent shocks with matched springs and sway bars ASAP, even if it is just a v1 setup until I work out a proper race/rally setup later. Tyres. I am running Yoko A052 in 235/45/18 all round, because that was what I could get in approximately the right height on wheels I had in the shed (Rays/Nismo 18x8 off the old Leaf actually!). As track tyres they are pretty poor; I note GTSBoy recently posted a porker comparo video including them where they were about the same as AD09.....that is nothing like a top line track tyre. I'll start getting that sorted but realistically I should get proper sized wheels first (likely 9.5 +38 front and 11 +55 at the rear, so a custom order, and I can't rotate them like the R32), then work out what the best tyre option is. BTW on that, Targa Tas had gone to road tyres instead of semi slicks now so that is a whole other world of choices to sort. Diff. This is the other thing that urgently needs to be addressed. It left massive 1s out of the fish hook all day, even when I was trying not too (you can also hear it reving on the video, and see the RPM rising too fast compared to speed in the data). It has an open diff that Infiniti optimistically called a B-LSD for "Brake Limited Slip Diff". It does good straight line standing start 11s but it is woeful on the track. Nismo seem to make a 2 way for it.
    • Also, I logged some data from the ECU for each session (mostly oil pressures and various temps, but also speed, revs etc, can't believe I forgot accelerator position). The Ecutek data loads nicely to datazap, I got good data from sessions 2, 3 and 4: https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-2?log=0&data=7 https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-3?log=0&data=6 https://datazap.me/u/duncanhandleyhgeconsultingcomau/250813-wakefield-session-4?log=0&data=6 Each session is cut into 3 files but loaded together, you can change between them in the top left. As the test sessions are mostly about the car, not me, I basically start by checking the oil pressure (good, or at least consistent all day). These have an electrically controlled oil pump which targets 25psi(!) at low load and 50 at high. I'm running a much thicker oil than recommended by nissan (they said 0w20, I'm running 10w40) so its a little higher. The main thing is that it doesn't drop too far, eg in the long left hand fish hook, or under brakes so I know I'm not getting oil surge. Good start. Then Oil and Coolant temp, plus intercooler and intake temps, like this: Keeping in mind ambient was about 5o at session 2, I'd say the oil temp is good. The coolant temp as OK but a big worry for hot days (it was getting to 110 back in Feb when it was 35o) so I need to keep addressing that. The water to air intercooler is working totally backwards where we get 5o air in the intake, squish/warm it in the turbos (unknown temp) then run it through the intercoolers which are say 65o max in this case, then the result is 20o air into the engine......the day was too atypical to draw a conclusion on that I think, in the united states of freedom they do a lot of upsizing the intercooler and heat exchanger cores to get those temps down but they were OK this time. The other interesting (but not concerning) part for me was the turbo speed vs boost graph: I circled an example from the main straight. With the tune boost peaks at around 18psi but it deliberately drops to about 14psi at redline because the turbos are tiny - they choke at high revs and just create more heat than power if you run them hard all the way. But you can also see the turbo speed at the same time; it raises from about 180,000rpm to 210,000rpm which the boost falls....imagine the turbine speed if they held 18psi to redline. The wastegates are electrically controlled so there is a heap of logic about boost target, actual boost, delta etc etc but it all seems to work well
×
×
  • Create New...