Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

also note i couldnt find it before

but i didn't go against what you said just to be an asshat it is documented a RB25 turbo on a RB20 engine is quiet capable of 14-15psi this is why i believe on a RB25 engine it isnt running out of efficiency @ 13-14

source

Have a look at some efficiency tables. People dont realise that it's not all about boost in alot of cases. A stock turbo works sooo much harder to produce 13-14psi than a much larger turbo. A smaller turbo working harder than a larger one has 10 times more heat than a slightly larger turbo on the same psi. Heat is the main cause for it's loss in efficiency. Heat is the main contributor for power loss. Heat is another contributor for detonation. Heat Heat Heat. 10-12 PSI is the effiency range for that sized turbo combination. It's been proven over and over and over again. It pays to spend time on all sorts of cars using different sized turbo's and watching power DIVE when you add any more HEAT and BOOST into a turbo that isn't efficient for those settings.
Also, you can't compare an rb25 turbo's efficiency on an RB20 because an RB20 if your unaware is a 2L. Being a 2L it has less stroke, less flow, less heat so therefore the effiencienfy range for that specific turbo goes up a tad. Efficiency can also be determined with front and rear housing not matching at a certain flow level. At 10-12psi the rear housing of the rb25 turbo is just large enough to not create surges caused by lack of flow in relation to how much the front housing is squeezing into the motor. Where as at 12psi and above, the front housing is flowing a tad too much volume for that tiny little rear housing to handle....sure it will cope, but it gets f**kn hot. Hense where the heat comes into play, in turn heatsoaking the front housing a whole lot more..taking efficiency away from the turbo. Another reason efficiency can be effected is because the front wheel of the compressor is designed to flow a certain amount of air at a certain speed. Just like a water pump, Behaving fairly simular, if you speed the front wheel up and the pitch of the front wheel is incorrect for speed it is turning, Just like a water pump it can cavitate the air and be useless. Hence why if you use the wrong pitch of the prop on a plane at the wrong speed then the plane will loose momentum. Once again the same with a water pump, if the impellor's pitch doesn't suit the speed it is turning at it will can cavitate and there for loose efficiency.

understand madaz?

Chad, are you running standard internals? Or are you running some form of 26/30 or stroked 2.8 kit lol :P

Weren't you pumping out 230kw with the standard turbo's? That's nearly a 100kw power gain! Lol that's crazy dude.

Yeah it was 230kw before and as Luke said im just running GT2860-5's on a standard internal R33 GTR motor.

awesome effort chad!

Thanks mate, i also did a few mods to the manifolds and dump pipes to improve air flow, and also hollowed out the AFM's as they aren't used, which would of helped a little.

So the Skyline is now done. Thanks to Andew (blue32) for fitting the turbos for me. It made 316rwkw on the Willall dyno. Im very happy with the end result :P

thats a great result Chad

WELOCOME TO THE 300+RWKW CLUB.........

understand madaz?

yeah mate but i still cant help thinking that a RB20 pushing 15psi is going to put out similar heat to a RB25 pushing out 13-14psi

i only had on a few occasions heat soaking on my car so i know it does happen when you push the standard turbo too much

looks like a nice figure there Mitch but i believe there running less brake on the rollers to inflate your figure there Mitch

looks like a nice figure there Mitch but i believe there running less brake on the rollers to inflate your figure there Mitch

I agree steve my mates GT went from 224 at Aussies to 257 at KPM with the addition of underdrive pulleys only :P (which in reality would be 5-10rwkw at the most). Hows your car doing mate got it sorted?

Hi Lee na i minor issue of not being able to boost part 5k rpm has arisen will be at adrians friday to drop my front shaft and to smooth out the lower rpm and double check afr's as well

my future plans for big injectors may have changed also due to a slight drop in compression nothing to worry about but enough to know its tired and wont support 300 unless E85 is a lot more forgiving which i think it is more research needed and a chat to adrian

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...