Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It's fast.

But super easy to drive. I'm even using it as my daily at the moment even though I actually have a daily car in the WRX. I'm just enjoying driving the GT-R too much to put it away in the garage again.

I wonder how much of the diference between a resposive HKS 2530 tune is to the "average" tune that people are having done.

How much drivability and mid range torque is being lost because cars are not being tuned properly?

Purely seat of my pants assessment, my R32 GTS4 with its laggy till 4500 rpm GT25BB40 turbo had better low end response from 2000-3500 than the R33 gtr has. The RB26 has a larger stroke and bore, and a little more compression, so it should feel more responsive. Is this response "diference" all in the differential gearing or was it in the tune?

The GTS4 was running around 100 more hp than the GTR currently is too. The main diference is the GTR runs a power fc and was tuned by someone on the goldcoast and the GTS4 ran a wolf and was tuned by me. I wonder if the GTR tune is just a "safe" tune and has its ignition retarded by 2-3 degrees than it could potentially be in the mid range area's, and thats where its loosing that mid range torque.

All too often you read threads about how much HP does it make, but nobody drives everywhere at redline. Thats why Snowman's dyno sheet is so sexy. That mid range torque that makes it a fun streetable car.

I am contemplating doing a before and after dyno run with the current power FC tune, and then with the new Wolf V5 ecu im installing next week. Withing changing anything else. The results arent going to be comparing ecu capabilities... more so i wonder if i will gain more mid range torque because my understanding of MAP based tuning is better than MAF...

Well the key indicators would be rwhp at say 3500rpm, 4000 & 4500rpm. Lets be honest if your motor is producing good torque by then.....

Snowies numbers appear to be:

3500 rpm: 125kW (100km/h)

4000rpm: 180kW (114km/h)

4500rpm: 255kW (128km/h)

On the assumption that 114km/h in 4th equals 4000rpm.

Edited by djr81
Rb26 eh?

Response only, no power goal.

Rip off the turbos, increase the compression ratio to 10.8:1 with some RB25DE pistons, lighten the flywheel, fit the 4.35 diffs out of an R32 GTS4 and fit some tube extractors.

Throttle response with the six throttle body induction should be pretty instantaneous.

Well you did ask...........

thats it exactly. theres a guy here in NZ who used a rb30 block, R33 vvt 24 valve head 2.5 liter,

four core radiator, some lumpy cams an after market ecu, larger injectors, fuel reg , and larger fuel pump.

rebuilt the bottom end fly wheel , twin plate clutch , custom drive shaft etc

shoved it in a 1985 toyota hilux of all things.... used to go nutz az, it would spend all day at the track happily going between 2000 and 9000 rpm(wouldnt idle any lower)

it got dyno'd at 295 kw @the rear wheels before it started slipping on the rolling road.

(more than my rb20det was at the time) :thumbsup:

dude used a 1987 vl 5 speed(7 of them before getting a hollenger dog box ) and a ford nine inch diff full custom mounts, even went to the trouble of

shoving the entire R33 interior B pillar forward into the cab of this ute

had the dash retrimed and door cards etc all fitted, moved the hand brake down to the tunnel, installed the entire dash loom along with the ecu and it loom, instrument cluster etc.

including the power window set up lol

it was virtually a rb30 blocked R33 gts in ute form.

actually. from memory i think nissan did build a n/a rb26... it was in a top end gloria early 90's???????? any one care to google it.

Edited by nizmonut

here we go found the specs on it.

i got the rb26dett version from autech.

Autech Nissan Skyline 26 R32 4

This is a strange one. A non-turbo 4 door Skyline with an RB26DE engine. Yes not a typo. 188 Units were produced all with automatic transmission and all in the same colour (paint code JK0).

Sold for more than twice as much as the GTS-t (Type M) of the time but with less power.

Power: 220ps (164kw) at 6600rpm

Torque: 25.0kg/m (245Nm) at 5200rpm

Bore x stroke: 86x73.7mm

Displacement: 2568cc

Compression ratio: 10.5:1

Front brakes: 4 piston 296mm ventilated rotors

Rear brakes: 2 piston 292mm ventilated rotors

Wheels: 16"

Tyres: Bridgestone Expedia S-01 205/55R16 88v

Dimensions:

Length: 4580mm

Width: 1695mm

Height: 1360mm

Weight: 1480kg

just finished dynoing the driftcar which was built purely for response. it seems to mirror Snowys exactly :D

3500 rpm: 120 (100km/h)

4000rpm: 185kW (114km/h)

4500rpm: 255kW (128km/h)

post-34927-1211473108_thumb.jpg

post-34927-1211473180_thumb.jpg

I took Snowy's advice a while back on the "dash fives".

The dyno below was a "softer tune" (red line) than at present and shows the 2860-5s as compared to GT-RS terbs on an HKS 2.8L built engine (shown as the peakier blue line)

Since this time, we've added more timing and lifted the boost so that now we are at a similar top end around 550 rwhp. Mid range has fattened out of sight. I'll try and get an updated comparison dyno graph of the two setups.

The proof is in the driving, however, and the car is just ballistic on the track with even a shocking driver like me recording more than competitive times on the more open and longer tracks. Full boost is on before 4k and with a redline of 9k you rarely find yourself far away from serious torque.

But as Snowy says, still very easy to drive at partial throttle and plenty of response off boost.

post-705-1211619036_thumb.jpg

Shit thats one amazing comparo Gav, really amazing the difference there

Thanks Ash

Twoogle reckons I've "Left the Faith" by dumping the GT-RS terbs, and to be honest I do miss the massive kick in the pants as you come on boost in 5th over the hill at Wanneroo, but through the corners and out of the apexes it's just a whole lot more balanced and tractable.

I would love a 2.8....

Yeah without a doubt, power delivery would be brilliant.

Having been in Snowys car, i can imagine the grin you'd get from it :)

It just comes on sooo early with the 2.8!

well im currently building a tomei 2.8 but im chucking on a garrett to4z... full built im aiming for bout 600hp aka bout 450rwkw.... ive seen em kicking in bout 4g and going all the way to 9g one 25psi making these numbers so im hoping mine will do the same...... by the sounds of it not as repsonsive as u want but not to bad for th power it will make

Edited by skylinekid

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...