Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

HI Charlie, going to have a look at Chavey's build, thanks

I see Piggaz is just ordering the OS88 box , cannot wait to hear how they go as a DD and Paul's car should be a good test and I believe he likes to drive hard as he keeps braking things, sorry Paul :)

I dropped my car into the workshop on Tuesday and now the wait starts :(

After listening to you blokes I ended up confirming some changes to the driveline and will see how the Box goes or when it goes before I change it.Better start putting the $$$$s away

Gone with the Coppermix C Spec Twin(over 700HP), Nismo slave cylinder, Quaife front diff , modifying the Trannie and already have a Nismo 2-way LSD /back.

The boys said to try the Unigroup 260 10.8 cams as they will give me more air, Better springs and retainers, cleaning the head up, oversized valves. Staying with the PT6262 B Turbo (over 700hP), maybe a larger back housing depending on the results.

Just waiting to see how the Walbro 460lph goes when the tune is being done and work off the results

RB30 Block has been modified. Plus all of the other part to go with the Nitto 3.2 Stroker Kit to make it a strong motor all round.

Going to have to make it stop now, Piggaz suggested I look at the Endless Brakes as they are strong and still work OK cold for a DD.

While they are doing the job I am having the Haltech Flex Fuel Sensor tuned in with the build , just in case, well you never know what you are going to want in the future, I was happy with the way it was, well for a few weeks ,haha

It will be around 400awkw, no big turbo/s or big cams, response and linear power from the start to the limiter, well :/

all this and no EFR ?

I guess only time will tell how it all works together, the worst option is to change the turbo, then flog it off to get a couple of $$$s back :)

I just hated the idea of changing it, just put it in and it is good for 700HP + and as the was made a huge difference how the car drives, so I want to see how it goes as I could not find a comparison, so I guess I will be the first with the TP6262 on a 3.2 stroker :)

I'd be interested knowing how many people making big hp on a single use WG on the manifold vs WG on turbo housing. Particularly how it results to boost control/spool times/spool response etc.

I'd be interested knowing how many people making big hp on a single use WG on the manifold vs WG on turbo housing. Particularly how it results to boost control/spool times/spool response etc.

Would be interesting but I don't think it will ever happen. I can't see 2 people having an identical setup (except gate position) to compare, or someone swapping gate position just to compare.

  • 4 months later...

I'm uploading my result here. This is a newly developed SAT ATR45 turbocharger. The engine is fully stock, unopened. Using factory cams, and factory cam gears. This is a single turbo, externally gated on E85 fuel. It is pretty good to drive on road.

Power n Response against factory twins:

powervsstock2.JPG

powervsstock.JPG

no, it is pretty high. I think dynopack might be a hub dyno.

If I am reading the last graph correctly the standard turbo(purple?) is at 18psi which is high for a standard turbo.

my race car makes less than that with r32 n1s at standard boost (12psi).

no, it is pretty high. I think dynopack might be a hub dyno.

If I am reading the last graph correctly the standard turbo(purple?) is at 18psi which is high for a standard turbo.

my race car makes less than that with r32 n1s at standard boost (12psi).

Nah 360ish is normal for 15psi on stock R33 GTR turbos, pushing a bit more boost should see what Stao makes.

In saying that, we had a PTE 5858 on a RB25 NEO that was all over that SAT ATR45 on less boost

In saying that, Stao that turbo

I make 261rwkw on 16psi and 293rwkw on 19psi on a chassis dyno from stockers and with a few 125mph passes would confirm that power

So 275rwkw from 18psi seems about right, though I do believe the Dynapack is a hub dyno so that might be low :/

Would like to see a graph using the same boost level though

I make 261rwkw on 16psi and 293rwkw on 19psi on a chassis dyno from stockers and with a few 125mph passes would confirm that power

So 275rwkw from 18psi seems about right, though I do believe the Dynapack is a hub dyno so that might be low :/

Would like to see a graph using the same boost level though

866FE882-D5CD-41AE-9988-94F6E6A306B9_zps

Was waiting for you to say something. :D

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...