Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have a garrett journal bearring t3. It *might* be a super 60 but I'm not sure about that.

.60 AR Compressor housing

.48 AR exhaust housing.

Garrett claims 350 hp on they're current t3 with a .42 AR compressor housing.

I'm just curious, as I broke a plastic tip off of one of my 450cc injectors, what sort of boost should I run with this new turbo on the factory injectors? I have an SAFC, HKS EVC, and will be using an AEM wideband.

At this maximum safe boost level, what horsepower should I be making? My goal is 300 whp, but I figure that might be pushing it too far.

Thanks!

-Max

post-32875-1183839295_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/175729-factory-rb20-injector-limit/
Share on other sites

Its dependant on airflow

Its not a "given" psi. One turbo might will flow more than another, etc etc.

So using "18 psi" is a load of rubbish :thumbsup:

Depends on the car/turbo spec and carry on from there

cheers

This is why I listed the specs on my turbo, and injectors...

I'm not looking for an exact answer, but just a safe guestimate..

Thanks!

with my t3/t4 turbo i got 327hp with stock injectors and a cheap FPR. Injectors reached 100% just before redline and a/f's went to around 12.7-13:1 can't quite remember.. the turbo has a .63 exhaust and a .5 or .55 front again can't remember. this was with an safcII aswell. And also 18psi

Good to know, I dont want to reach quite that high of a duty cycle, but I also have a smaller turbo than you...

I'll keep the boost around 16 psi and maybe take my fuel pressure up a few PSI.

Thanks for the response!

PS: do you have a dyno graph? and did you add fuel with your SAFC?

yeah got a dyno graph i'll scan it and put it up. but it only have power against boost, no af. we actually had to take out fuel over most of the map as the factory computers just dump the fuel in as a safety measure. we tried addiing more fuel at the top but it didn't help which is how we know its the injectors. set ur fuel reg to 40psi as the base pressure. i ended up turning mine down to about 15-16psi on high boost for the street just to be safe

thats with the vacuum line unplugged correct?

My guess is that this is with idle vacuum, and a rising rate reg.

Seriously, i dont see why you guys dont spend the $200 and upgrade to gtr injectors, its a small % of what you are spending doing it up, and than skimping on the most important part

I have a lot of difficulty believing rb20 injectors can flow enough for 327rwhp. regardless of rail pressure. also you do not want to run a rail pressure of any higher thn 60 psi due to o rings and hoses that are 15 years old (44 psi + 16psi boost) even if you did run 4 psi extra rail pressure that is less than 6% more fuel and 270cc equates to 273.5 horsepower at the flywheel then add 6% and you get 289.9 horsepower at the fly wheel at 12:1 afr.

then you have drivetrain loss to consider:)

I am not trying to start an argument but there are the calculations for you.

to keep it simple, 200rwkw is the maximum i would want to run on RB20 injectors!

On Boostworxs dyno myself and a mates both hit 100% duty at around 180rwkw with a 12:1 afr and stock fuel pressure.

Mate of mine was running a suspected GTR pump that later ran out of fuel at 250rwkw and my own which is a bosch 044.

180rwkw is 241rwhp so 29rwhp drive train loss going by the usual 270cc injectors = 270hp. :S

Maybe our beloved DD Dynos are reading a touch high as technically its not possible for 270cc injectors to make 241rwhp when you consider drive train loss.

On Boostworxs dyno myself and a mates both hit 100% duty at around 180rwkw with a 12:1 afr and stock fuel pressure.

Mate of mine was running a suspected GTR pump that later ran out of fuel at 250rwkw and my own which is a bosch 044.

Was the 250rwkw with stock injectors with a stock FPR?

Was the 250rwkw with stock injectors with a stock FPR?

Sorry no. His stock injectors with the same fuel pump and stock fuel reg hit 100% duty at ~183rwkw with 12:1 afr's Gt35r .82 on 7-8psi.

Dropped in a set of sard 800 twin sprays maxed out the fuel pump at 250rwkw and then went on to make 260rwkw on 1 bar.

The turbo really didn't make all that good power under 10psi; over 10psi it really woke up.

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...