Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah i know it was a joke, mine was just a little payback :)

that is actually not my car, its another simons garrett t04z with 0.84 rear stock capacity rb26, stock plenum and throttle boddies...

my car isnt making that much power yet because of a faulty trust bov leaking my boost, but went a very easy 420kw with problem. will be getting mine tuned again soon on some more boost (hopefully not escaping out the bov this time) and see how she goes but looking like it will be very similiar to this one

  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  Cerbera said:
yeah i know it was a joke, mine was just a little payback :)

that is actually not my car, its another simons garrett t04z with 0.84 rear stock capacity rb26, stock plenum and throttle boddies...

my car isnt making that much power yet because of a faulty trust bov leaking my boost, but went a very easy 420kw with problem. will be getting mine tuned again soon on some more boost (hopefully not escaping out the bov this time) and see how she goes but looking like it will be very similiar to this one

T04Z's are a great turbo aren't they...i was almost going to go that route with ours. The torque curve on that graph is testament to their ability. But getting a little common now and we wanted to think outside the square as per usual. When i say "big single" im more refering to the T88, T51R, GT42 and GT45 brigade. The T04Z is more of a mid-range all rounder, and allows the owner a bit more flexibility with the usage of the car, street, circuit, drag etc. They also had the added feature of easily altering the rear housing to suit each application which is another plus for them.

  DiRTgarage said:
hehe she's pretty mad (you wont see a torque curve like that with your big single)

ive love to give you a drive steve but that would be unfair to your underwear...lol

its an OS Giken 5 speed.

Hehehe

Would love to go for a ride in it (ill even wear a second pair of underwear for that :) )

Ill do my best to come see it at WSID ;)

  DiRTgarage said:
T04Z's are a great turbo aren't they...i was almost going to go that route with ours. The torque curve on that graph is testament to their ability. But getting a little common now and we wanted to think outside the square as per usual. When i say "big single" im more refering to the T88, T51R, GT42 and GT45 brigade. The T04Z is more of a mid-range all rounder, and allows the owner a bit more flexibility with the usage of the car, street, circuit, drag etc. They also had the added feature of easily altering the rear housing to suit each application which is another plus for them.

yeah mine (t04z 0.84) seems to fit what i need very well... mostly street, soon to be a little drag and circuit

considering the build of my engine, no head porting, stock plenum, valves and throttle bodies getting over 20psi boost at about 3800rpm in 4th gear and looking like it will make 450rwkw fairly easily you cant go wrong.

still when people using t88's seem to be making just over 500rwkw compared with nearly 470rwkw from a z but with more than 1500rpm more lag, it seems a bit pointless to me to go "the big single"

  Cerbera said:
still when people using t88's seem to be making just over 500rwkw compared with nearly 470rwkw from a z but with more than 1500rpm more lag, it seems a bit pointless to me to go "the big single"

precisely

  DiRTgarage said:
the last time we raced it weighed 1474kg...without the 106kg driver...so a 398KW GTR to go 10.3 sec's weighing 1580kg with a synchro box is a fair achievement.

we have stripped some weight out of it since so it will be interesting to put it on the scales at the track next week.

unfortunately i still weigh over 100kg

Yeah, for sure, those figures dont lie. Good hp.

100kg....I can race it for you ;) Im 60 :whistling:

  B-Man said:
3 Rotor + HKS T04Z + 10PSI = 350rwkw (with an auto) :whistling:

Turning boost up on Friday ;)

im sure your auto will make a meal of the strip...so dont be too concerned about dyno power loss with it...Brendan, properly tuned and set-up you have a 9sec car there.

congrats :rofl:

I saw your car there on saturday with my mate adrian (he had a bit of a chat to you in his pretty lil I.S shirt :thumbsup: ). Saw it on the dyno too, had a bit of a giggle about black smoke ending up on the show cars :D

Car sure came with the goods :P

  Jago said:
congrats :rofl:

I saw your car there on saturday with my mate adrian (he had a bit of a chat to you in his pretty lil I.S shirt :thumbsup: ). Saw it on the dyno too, had a bit of a giggle about black smoke ending up on the show cars :D

Car sure came with the goods :P

Yeah Jim had the tune really rich and a lot of unburnt fuel ended up out the exhaust pipe. A few "show" cars copped a bit of it...lol

350awkw @ 10psi on Saturday wasn't too shabby considering how rich it was.

seriously bushit power. one very eficant engine you got there. im clearly doing something wrong.....

376awkw on 1.6bar with t04z .84split rear. poncam 260/9.15 mild port job. (around the valve seat area) 90mm staight through exhaust. smc autronic 900cc injectors. should be making more??

  T04GTR said:
seriously bushit power. one very eficant engine you got there. im clearly doing something wrong.....

376awkw on 1.6bar with t04z .84split rear. poncam 260/9.15 mild port job. (around the valve seat area) 90mm staight through exhaust. smc autronic 900cc injectors. should be making more??

Dave remember...the dyno is only a tuning tool...how does it feel on the road mate??

ours made the same power as before but the seat of the pants is telling me the cars are not even close to being alike.

am pushing thru massive amounts of exhaust with the 20B - and I have a 1.32 rear housing.

Sorry - thought you were referring to T04Z - compared to mine - ha ha

I reckon Paul is running a pretty funky compression ratio :D

haha tru tru. it feels the same but just fatter. goes alot better. still 375awkw aint bad. i think theres some power hiding in the valve lift or lack there of.

thats on the backburner now. as my route 6 gearset exploded.

  T04GTR said:
haha tru tru. it feels the same but just fatter. goes alot better. still 375awkw aint bad. i think theres some power hiding in the valve lift or lack there of.

thats on the backburner now. as my route 6 gearset exploded.

Dropping the car off back at Croydon's tomm. for full tune and possibly fitting the Autronic ecu. If not fitting the Autronic ill run the car Wednesday night with the Power FC PRO fitted and use the two-step to get it off the line. Will be interesting to see what sort of numbers it will run. Ill be taking photo's/video's of dyno runs and drag runs too....stay tuned!

I went to the autosalon but i could not wait around all day for the best car at show to run so i missed out on the run.

Looks great and congrats on the win!!! Good to see a RB win a event :) woulda been different if Miss 2j ran... Anyone know what is up 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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...