Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Starting to get our car sorted...

Finalised the run-in on Friday (did a Sydney>Newcastle>Sydney drive) this was on top of the initial dyno run-in at Croydon's and put a bit of boost in it late friday night. @22 psi on Croydons 4WD dyno it easily pumped out 461KW with the rich run-in tune in the Power FC. This was with BP ultimate 98...so with a decent (read:leaner) tune and Shell 100 in the tank i can see a figure of 500KW+ achieveable, yes over 500kw with low-mounts on pump gas. That should silence a few of the "big single" naysayers...hehe

We took the car to Newcastle Autosalon on Saturday and put it in the dyno shootout, with only 10psi we made just over 350kw to be in 1st place for Sundays finals. I turned it back up to 22psi and with the heat of the day and an exhibition hall full of exhaust gas from the other finalists (not ideal conditions) we made 450KW! This was enough to secure victory in the dyno catergory and win another 4 trophy's including the prestigious "Tough as nails" trophy for toughest car at the show.

This is by far above our expectations and a real shock to Jim and the boys at Croydon's who were unsure if this direction (sticking with twin low-mounts) we were taking with this combo would make the numbers. With race fuel and the NOS in it, it should be abosolutely ballistic.

600kw here we come.

We would like to thank Jim Souvas and all the boys at CRD for all their hard work, knowledge and patience.

Racing the car this Wednesday night if all goes well.

ill keep you posted

Paul

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/183511-two06l-update-twoogle/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What was the problem the car had that kept it off the road? All sorted now?

Good question Roy, i must be careful what i say about this subject but here goes...

We trusted our car with another workshop to have some work done (custom fabrication work) Their work practices were far from what i expected from them. To cut a long story short, they allowed the freshly built engine to become unsealed and during their work some metal shavings/swarf entered the engine. The engine then had to be removed again, stripped, rebuilt and re-installed.

I must stress this workshop was NOT Croydon Racing Developments.

Congrats on the trophies dirt

what turbos are on the car, capacity and static cr?

:)

turbo's HKS GT-RS items

capacity 2600cc

static CR one thing ill be keeping to ourselves (im sure you understand)

a little off topic but back in the day when u ran the 10.3 @ 133mph do u have a power figure for that run

398kw...i think...it was just shy of 400kw

the torque curve of that engine/turbo/cam combo was very peaky though.

the torque curve of this engine is nearly dead flat at max torque for 5000rpm...its incredible on the road.

its a completely different car....more different than 50kw would have you think.

the power does not tell the story...its the torque.

ill post up a graph

fookin jeebus paul nice result! :)

i bet u cant wait to hit the track on wednesday, good luck :)

yeah...its not too shabby for a very fat (rich) run-in tune. Will be out either Wednesday night and/or all day Friday sorting it out at the strip. All depends on when Croydon's are avail.

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...