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

    • 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...