Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ha. I wish. Give me time to kill this one :cool:

I want to get the car engineered so im getting a few little things sorted out plus a body kit fitted and painted.

Im also seeing some of my mates making crazy power figures, so a slightly bigger turbo might be on the cards.

I forget, do you drag race? I'd love to see what yours would do down the strip, I'd have thought that it'd be in the vicinity of 10s on decent tyres? Surely there must be some temptation to bust out a real fast time like that using far less turbo than most do :thumbsup:

Ha. I wish. Give me time to kill this one :thumbsup:

I want to get the car engineered so im getting a few little things sorted out plus a body kit fitted and painted.

Im also seeing some of my mates making crazy power figures, so a slightly bigger turbo might be on the cards.

a t04z? dont do it, keep the 35 on it with a .82 and spend money on the head. that should see close to 600hp at the tyres with everything working properly

a t04z? dont do it, keep the 35 on it with a .82 and spend money on the head. that should see close to 600hp at the tyres with everything working properly

Dave ive got a nice twin scroll turbo here on the shelf. Its a little larger than what you have now that you can borrow for a 'suck it and see' test session if you like.

Come pick it up if interested.

If i do decide to upgrade the turbo it will be a GT35R .82 w/ported shroud like the 3076 i have now. Love the sound of it spooling :D

Also might see if i can get the collector cut off the manifold and have a split pulse one welded on.

It is a difficult choice, as the response VS power of the setup now is insane.

If i do decide to upgrade the turbo it will be a GT35R .82 w/ported shroud like the 3076 i have now. Love the sound of it spooling :)

Also might see if i can get the collector cut off the manifold and have a split pulse one welded on.

It is a difficult choice, as the response VS power of the setup now is insane.

response is king for circuit and street

If i do decide to upgrade the turbo it will be a GT35R .82 w/ported shroud like the 3076 i have now. Love the sound of it spooling :)

Also might see if i can get the collector cut off the manifold and have a split pulse one welded on.

It is a difficult choice, as the response VS power of the setup now is insane.

i personally think you would be insane to do this... a friend had a rb25 neo with cams, greddy plenum etc and was a cop with a 3582r, convinced him to downgrade to a 3076r and now its awesome!!!

Edited by Cerbera
i personally think you would be insane to do this... a friend had a rb25 neo with cams, greddy plenum etc and was a cop with a 3582r, convinced him to downgrade to a 3077r and now its awesome!!!

REALLY?

my Mechanic got a 33 tuned with a 3582 with a .84 rear and got the lag down from 4200rpm to close to 3200-3500rpm.

To me that is bloody good, keeping in mind the size of the 3582. That is almost the same amount of lag as my .63 3582, bloody amazing.

Edited by r33cruiser
If i do decide to upgrade the turbo it will be a GT35R .82 w/ported shroud like the 3076 i have now. Love the sound of it spooling :)

Also might see if i can get the collector cut off the manifold and have a split pulse one welded on.

It is a difficult choice, as the response VS power of the setup now is insane.

Do what you said above, split pulse the manifold and go a split pulse GT35 - probably will be never quite as good as the GT30R but closest thing to having your cake and eating it too :thumbsup:

i just put a gt37r on a supra, you know you want to. do it. :):thumbsup::laugh:

Is that the one softy was telling me about?

How does it go up macpass?

id love to hear what you think as ive got the gt3566-82r here waiting for my supra

New workshop looks the goods!

If i do decide to upgrade the turbo it will be a GT35R .82 w/ported shroud like the 3076 i have now. Love the sound of it spooling :P

Also might see if i can get the collector cut off the manifold and have a split pulse one welded on.

It is a difficult choice, as the response VS power of the setup now is insane.

Mate call up GCG and talk to them about a 66mm front fan ;)

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

    • 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...