Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all, just need some advice on wat to do to my car next... been offered a couple of items at really good prices and not sure which one to go with...

been offered a new t04E for $400 and an e-manage ultimate for somewhere around $600.

im on an apprentice wage so cant afford both.

Tis a ser1 r33, car allready has boost controller, 100mm thick front mount, high flow cat and 3.5 back. hks intake and dynos at 187rwkw on 12psi. (ratios are fine).

will be getting front pipe in next couple of weeks and dont know which of the other 2 options to go with next! or mabie should i be looking at somthing else mod wise next?

cheers cheers!

brett

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/172249-what-mod-should-i-do-next/
Share on other sites

computer is your next point of call. get the emanage or save a little longer and get a power fc or microtech lts12. without a computer to back up your other mods it would be pointless getting a new turbo. also you would need a manifld for the turbo coz of the different flange to the stock 1. means more $$$

IMHO save a little more, get a microtech (epa approved as it is tuner lockable) and set your car up properly first time. once you got your comp, you can stretch the stock injectors to 85% duty cycle, and stock turbo to 10psi everyday driving and you'll c a big difference. or better yet, for like 900 do a trade with slide for your stock turbo and get one of his hi flow turbos after you get the comp.

fmic, 13psi on slide hi flow, hks intake, 3" turbo back zorst, microtech lts12, 85% duty cycle on stock injectors and you should see around 210-220rwKw.

next step, bigger injectors, cams = 230-240rwKw.

its up to you.

Edited by cheez

apprentice wage aye?

well ppls comments will be all da time... start getting a microtech and set it up and blah blah

f**k that

go get your e manage man.. as long as you got a tuner, keep aside 500 bucks install and tune ...do what you can afford at the moment and i garantee you will be happy with the results.

apprentice wage aye?

well ppls comments will be all da time... start getting a microtech and set it up and blah blah

f**k that

go get your e manage man.. as long as you got a tuner, keep aside 500 bucks install and tune ...do what you can afford at the moment and i garantee you will be happy with the results.

yeah thinkin ill go with sumthin along those lines. got free use of a dyno and tuning software so should be pretty affordable. was just thinkinh bout this turbo cause its so cheap! been looking into the emanages a bit and they seem like a pretty good thing for the money they are worth...

yeh turbo is good and cheap, but does it have a t3 flange on it? if it doesnt means you need to make a mod plate or get a new manifold, either way spells money.

and in regards to a tuner, see ray at RE Customs. he doing my safc2 an d tune for 200.im in the same boat as you. im saving for the microtech and turbo but when i got given the safc2 for nothing couldnt resist.

i also am an apprentice, so know what it feels like. get the emanage then and take it from there.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...