Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Got my car on the dyno finally.. Made 227hp at 6000rpm.. but the problem is that after 6000 my power drops off quite steeply.. and by just over 7000rpm i'm only making 180hp.

Apparently i have a hefty flow restriction.. But my set up should be quite free flowing.. apexi pod, fmic, JJR split dump, Xforce cat, greddy cat-back ..

i think it might be my turbo itself.. bought a rb25 turbo off ebay and it's always been quite whirry.. Do you guys agree that this could be the issue?

Anyone selling a good condition, low km's rb25 turbo? (preferably a neo if possible) ... would this fix the issue?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/237215-flow-restriction/
Share on other sites

I'll put money on it being that Xforce cat.. the 3" "hiflow" xforce cat I got is sh~t.

I still have a similar flow restriction but that's because the turbo is too small for the motor.. goes from 245rwhp @ 5800rpm to 90rwhp by the time it hits the 6800rpm limiter :thumbsup:

i thought the X-Force cats were pretty good & free flowing! I hadn't heard any bad feedback about them until now.

From Wogans setup description, it is very similar to what i have (induction & flow wise).

Yeah well basically I got a sticker, grabbed one of those cats to go over the pits. It made a huge difference to response and topend that I took it out before the car went to the tuners.

Might not be an issue on stock motors at stock boost but on my 30, no good :thumbsup:

Edited by bubba

yeah car is tuned.. was a dyno tune yesterday..

it's not missing or anything.. definitely not coilpacks .. (why does that answer come up for every skyline related problem? haha)

only running 13.5 psi at the moment, but it's not losing any boost at the high end.. it's dead flat on 13.5 from 4000 to 7500

It doesn't sound like an intake or exhaust restriction to me. To me it sounds like something electronic related. Could be some sort of igntion issue, airflow meter (running outside of its resolution), faulty injector(s), faulty fuel pump or an ecu. I've got my money on it being a fuel pump, pretty common, replaced a few fuel pumps in my time. If the turbo is holding boost, then i doubt its a turbo problem.

definately a 25 turbo. replaced it myself.

well it's definately not a rb20 turbo .. could possibly by one from an rb30 or something i suppose... never throught about it that much.. but it's not really out of puff.. like i said it's maintaining boost all the way..

From what the guy at Hyperdrive was telling me, it's not so much the lack of boost, but it's the restriction on the exhaust flow. .. but i do agree that it's hard to understand how it could have restricted flow and also maintain boost.

I might try taking the zorst off and putting it back on the dyno before going out and buying a new turbo.

I have a restriction, 245rwhp down to 90rwhp over a 1000rpm span (5.8k to 6.8k) and boost climbs from 12psi to 14psi (in the higher gears) so I wouldn't exactly call yours a massive restriction :D

I was insinuating that it could be the turbo out of it's efficiency range, yes it's holding boost but airflow and temperature of air probably isn't optimal..

Edited by bubba
I have a restriction, 245rwhp down to 90rwhp over a 1000rpm span (5.8k to 6.8k) and boost climbs from 12psi to 14psi (in the higher gears) so I wouldn't exactly call yours a massive restriction :D

I was insinuating that it could be the turbo out of it's efficiency range, yes it's holding boost but airflow and temperature of air probably isn't optimal..

wow.. yeah i guess mine isn't too bad. It definitely is possible that the turbo simply can't hack 14psi at 7000rpm.

  • 3 weeks later...

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...