Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

http://jdm-insider.com/Blogs/Eric/?p=540

You should go and pick up a copy of the February 2008 copy of Option Magazine. Hiro the editor in chief just sent me a copy because there’s a feature of Cosworth in it. Aside from the fact that there’s a bitchin feature of Cosworth in it (and a picture of yours truly with a stupid ass smile), the main focus of this issue is the R35 GT-R. There’s also a R35 GT-R catback exhaust test in it where some shop fabricated a titanium catback exhaust and the car made 507.9ps (500.95hp) at the flywheel. Granted, this test was conducted on a Dynapack so it probably read 5% or higher than any other dyno, but the gain of 22ps is for real. If you can’t do the math, that’s 485ps from the factory which is pretty god damn buff already considering the car is rated at 480hp at the flywheel. The boost went up by 0.1kg/cm^2 (1.42psi) due to the reduced backpressure, but this also tells you that the car has some serious potential from the factory. By looking at this exhaust I can guarantee you that it’s louder than hell so I wouldn’t expect a 22ps gain on a production catback exhaust though. Excuse the shitty scans…

r35.jpg

r354.jpg

r353.jpg

look at the last pic, how bloody rich does the thing run.

Edited by sav man
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/200673-mines-cat-back-results/
Share on other sites

The A/F doesn't surprise me. Most cars designed for cruising at high speed run rich to preserve the engine.

I remember reading an interview with Peter Luxeon of APS in a Motor Magazine, and he said they managed to pull 20% more power out of a 996 Turbo by leaning the mixture out. He said if you were sitting on an autobahn doing 250km/hr for several hours then the overly-rich mixture made sense, but when most of us don't sit at more than 120km/hr for any length of time its a waste of fuel and power.

Given that the R35 GT-R's aero and suspension was engineered so the driver could sit at 300km/hr without tiring them out, you'd expect they'd do the same for the engine.

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...