Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok chaps, it's like this.....

I have an R32 GTR, I have run 10.6@138mph in full street trim (full exh, street tyres, soundsystem pump fuel etc)... and I wan't to go faster BUT retain the same, if not better response for the street and track. I'm looking for low 10's in full street trim. I don't wan't to sacrifice weight or suspension, or upping the gas..... more power is my only option.

Previous set up: stock rb26 (still quite healthy) 396rwkw, T517Z 10cm's, 260 poncams, PFC, fuel syst, 50hp shot of N2O- at the track only NOT on the dyno, R3C and ppgdogbox, plus all the usual supporting mods... I ran on BFG street drag radials.

I have in stock, Tomei 2.8lt stroker kit, N1 block, ported head, 272 HKS cams etc....

What would YOU use for a turbo kit, maximising response on 98ron fuel, with a total power output around 450-460rwkw... I love my T517Z's but they were running 22psi flat out at 396rwkw.

Cheers

Justin

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/225836-rb28dett-turbo-choice/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People with 440awkw, stock shift gearboxes etc ... and have have run 10.40 or better, so cut out a few 10ths of a sec due to the dog box, and you *should* be running low 10's already without changing a thing.

So IMO you already have what you need, you just need to drive it to the time the car can run rather than chase power.

You wont get better response by upgrading turbos larger, even if you are going a stroker. Any gain from the kit will be well offset by the turbos.

If anything, just get a T04z, will do over 400rwkw on PULP.

If you can't run a 10.1 with a trap speed of 138mph then more power is not going to help you. You need to improve the vehicles dynamics and maybe driving style. The car has got it in it already, you just gotta bring it out.

What was the 60footer time?

People with 440awkw, stock shift gearboxes etc ... and have have run 10.40 or better, so cut out a few 10ths of a sec due to the dog box, and you *should* be running low 10's already without changing a thing.

So IMO you already have what you need, you just need to drive it to the time the car can run rather than chase power.

You wont get better response by upgrading turbos larger, even if you are going a stroker. Any gain from the kit will be well offset by the turbos.

If anything, just get a T04z, will do over 400rwkw on PULP.

im suprised you didnt point it out.. but twoogle's runs were 10.3 at 134mph with his 2530's and its been 9.7's i believe at 139mph.. so this blokes definately got a low/flat 10 in his car already seeing as he's doin 138mph.. i wonder if he knows about the 140+mph thing with andra which is why paul holds twoogle in third in twoogle across the line for the 139mph

im suprised you didnt point it out.. but twoogle's runs were 10.3 at 134mph with his 2530's and its been 9.7's i believe at 139mph.. so this blokes definately got a low/flat 10 in his car already seeing as he's doin 138mph.. i wonder if he knows about the 140+mph thing with andra which is why paul holds twoogle in third in across the line for the 139mph

this man speaks the truth...sort of...lol

correcting a couple of things said in thread...

Ash i assume the 440kw stock shift etc is me...i never raced with 440kw thats just a dyno comp figure (34psi, when racing we only ran 28psi) the car was raced with around 400-410kw.

rb26s13 you are slightly off the mark with the time stated...9.9's @ 139MPH but thanks anyway. Our car was capable of running quicker but couldnt race it to its full potential due to the ANDRA 140 MPH rule.

I think if you go GT-RS's and are willing to rev it (9500rpm) you could run a 9 with that MPH or at least a very low 10. You would have to get the cars weight including driver to around 1475kg to do the 9 though. Although you do have the dogbox so you might get away with being over 1500kg. Our car was almost as responsive as Racepace's 2.9ltr and was all over it in the midrange and ours was only running a STD nissan crank. So RS's are the proven route i think. Our car also easily made 455KW at the wheels at Newcastle Autosalon on 20psi with BP98 and over 500KW at final battle on Sunoco race fuel.

Edited by DiRTgarage
this man speaks the truth...sort of...lol

correcting a couple of things said in thread...

Ash i assume the 440kw stock shift etc is me...i never raced with 440kw thats just a dyno comp figure (34psi, when racing we only ran 28psi) the car was raced with around 400-410kw.

rb26s13 you are slightly off the mark with the time stated...9.9's @ 139MPH but thanks anyway. Our car was capable of running quicker but couldnt race it to its full potential due to the ANDRA 140 MPH rule.

I think if you go GT-RS's and are willing to rev it (9500rpm) you could run a 9 with that MPH or at least a very low 10. You would have to get the cars weight including driver to around 1475kg to do the 9 though. Although you do have the dogbox so you might get away with being over 1500kg. Our car was almost as responsive as Racepace's 2.9ltr and was all over it in the midrange and ours was only running a STD nissan crank. So RS's are the proven route i think. Our car also easily made 455KW at the wheels at Newcastle Autosalon on 20psi with BP98 and over 500KW at final battle on Sunoco race fuel.

come on.. it had a 7 in it somewhere 9.97 maybe? meh i cbf thinking to hungover i just remember one of your runs was 139mph and was a 9 but had a 7 after the 9. somewhere

come on.. it had a 7 in it somewhere 9.97 maybe? meh i cbf thinking to hungover i just remember one of your runs was 139mph and was a 9 but had a 7 after the 9. somewhere

9.97...spot on...PB is 9.95 @ 139.6 MPH....0.4MPH from being logged for no parachute. The day the ignition DVD was filmed (WSID bracket meeting) ran back to back 9.96-9.97 then when they turned up with the camera's and insisted on massive burnouts the times went 10.0's. The last run of the day the ANDRA stewards allowed me to have one pass that they would turn a blind eye to (in regard to MPH) as it was bleeding obvious that i was holding 3rd too long. So with PB's to the 330 and the 660 in both ET and MPH on the run I looked set for a 9.8* at 140+ MPH i went to shift it into 3rd and the bastard would not go in and rolled over the line with my foot on the clutch....it ended up a 10.1 at 129 MPH.

Thats why you can see me rip my gloves off and throw them in the in-car footage on the DVD

Back on topic...a HKS T51R KAI BB has very similar charateristics to twin HKS GT-RS's in regard to airflow, power output and efficiency. On a 2.8ltr that would be my 2nd choice.

Edited by DiRTgarage
He wants response!

T04Z. On song by 4000rpm for the win.

we have a to4z on our circiut car...its laggier than the drag car and doesnt make the power, might be ok on a 2.8 ltr though.

Edited by DiRTgarage
this man speaks the truth...sort of...lol

correcting a couple of things said in thread...

Ash i assume the 440kw stock shift etc is me...i never raced with 440kw thats just a dyno comp figure (34psi, when racing we only ran 28psi) the car was raced with around 400-410kw.

rb26s13 you are slightly off the mark with the time stated...9.9's @ 139MPH but thanks anyway. Our car was capable of running quicker but couldnt race it to its full potential due to the ANDRA 140 MPH rule.

I think if you go GT-RS's and are willing to rev it (9500rpm) you could run a 9 with that MPH or at least a very low 10. You would have to get the cars weight including driver to around 1475kg to do the 9 though. Although you do have the dogbox so you might get away with being over 1500kg. Our car was almost as responsive as Racepace's 2.9ltr and was all over it in the midrange and ours was only running a STD nissan crank. So RS's are the proven route i think. Our car also easily made 455KW at the wheels at Newcastle Autosalon on 20psi with BP98 and over 500KW at final battle on Sunoco race fuel.

Cheers for all the input guys.

I might look into GT-RS's then. I don't really fancy a big top mount. Even though they look sweeeet!

Mr DGarage, I remember reading somwhere that you run "modified" GT-RS's. Was that for response or for more top end??? who did them?

Do you have a dyno sheet posted up anywhere I can have a quiz at?

Cheers

Justin

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...