Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just put the figures in the dyno tool paul was quite interesting maybe gtrs aren't to bad comes on about the same as my setup but with heaps more in the midrange.... As Cubes said earlier its hard to compare dyno graph but there you go.....

Screenshot??

quite easy to compare dyno graphs if the dyno's are operated correctly. Between Croydon's Dyno Dynamics and Autosalon's Mainline we usually only see a couple of KW's difference, but thats a topic for another thread.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3653613
Share on other sites

Agreed Cubes but to make another 50kw that low down where its not making much boost regardless of how it was loaded is quite impressive..

Hey Guys,

I thought this post would stir some interest.

Now, the 450@wheels top end is okay, but check the torque curve and compare it to other rb's.

It makes like twice a normal rb between 2-4500!

This is the area most gtr owners complain about.

It is bizarre to drive, kinda like a quiet 6 litre n/a v12 that makes 600whp and revs to 9k....

I think we can get similiar improvements from the 2.6 as well.

cheers,

Ben

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3653621
Share on other sites

Surely lowly RB20 owners would not be able to afford welding and therefore resort to race taping the 2 blocks together.

That's just stupid man, everyone knows you need to use zip ties to put 2 RB20's together. Noob.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3653773
Share on other sites

I think we can get similiar improvements from the 2.6 as well.

Yep - I don't know what you did to mine but in the quick drive I had last week it sure has changed down low. I honestly thought at first you had changed turbo's on me. So I don't know if you have started tinkering with your ideas on a 2.6 already?

Still - it's nothing compared to yours now I'm sure. It sure looks impressive.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3653815
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

I thought this post would stir some interest.

Now, the 450@wheels top end is okay, but check the torque curve and compare it to other rb's.

It makes like twice a normal rb between 2-4500!

This is the area most gtr owners complain about.

It is bizarre to drive, kinda like a quiet 6 litre n/a v12 that makes 600whp and revs to 9k....

I think we can get similiar improvements from the 2.6 as well.

cheers,

Ben

Its truely mental...and i thought our torque curve was fat and flat. Its the ultimate circuit/street engine set-up. The linear power delivery would ensure a well balanced car coming onto the power through the twisties. Again Ben...job well done mate.

Tomm0...run in tune with BP98 as stated.

OFENSV, was done in 3rd to stop turbo shuffle, actually made another 10KW the night before at CRD in 4th gear. Jim just knows how to ramp it properly in 4th to stop it, old mate at Autosalon is not as experienced as Jim...hence 3rd gear.

now back to chatting about this bloody torque monster.

EDIT: Ben, any chance of getting a torque printout in a better scale...say 5000-15000N (motive force) or a 100-1300NM (torque).

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3654087
Share on other sites

QUOTE(RPMGTR @ 18 Feb 2008, 01:22 PM) *

I think we can get similiar improvements from the 2.6 as well.

:D

Hrm... i dunno wether to be excited or extremely worried about that :banana:

EXACTLY.....i just got mine back and i thought it was finished....clearly not :)

happy to donate it for 'testing'

hahahahahaha

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3654379
Share on other sites

Man, insane results - well done :teehee: There was a guy in NZ running I think low 11s (at least) with his R32 with what was rumoured to be an RB25 (or 26?) running an RD28 crank and rods and some aftermarket pistons resulting in a 2.9l. Not sure how much there is to that rumour, I've hunted around trying to find information on the parts to see if it can be or has been done and documented but to no avail.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/206406-rb29-wow/page/3/#findComment-3655742
Share on other sites

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...