Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just to add my few cents to the debate:D

I have a Greddy plenum and have found gains across the board with it. Maybe it's due to my intercooler pipe setup, or maybe due to the plenum it's hard to know. I have better throttle response, more mid-range power, and it doesn't run out of puff at the top-end till much later. In WA my stock turbo made the most power from all the other stock turbo's, and the major difference was the plenum.

Make of that what you will:D

Very nice !

Anyone ever made over 300rwhp from the stock turbo ? I'm currently at 272rwhp still with stock ECU and for some silly reason i'd rather upgrade everything but the std turbo just as something different to do.

sydneykid, your info is always extremely useful - particularly as i have only theory to back my suggestions, and you have actual bench experience. I already have a greddy plenum on order, so it is going on my car. To begin with i will probably run a adapter to use the factory throttle body, and run 65mm piping to the throttle from the FMIC outlet (it has a 65mm outlet).

I know that there will be flow turbulence behind the throttle when it is cracked open (due to the expansion to 80-90mm) but if anything this should in theory spread/disrupt the airflow a bit and instead of flowing straight to back cylinders (ie. no 5 and 6) there should be better distribution around the front of the plenum.

What do you think?

hi sydneykid, currently on the car is:

*3.5" turbo back

*pod in inclosure

coming is:

*FMIC

*ProfecB spec II

*Greddy intake

next plan:

stage 1:

*Power FC

*Fuel pump

*Injectors

Stage 2:

*HKS GT3040

*HKS 1.2mm head gasket (and any other bits and pieces to support this, obviously)

So i would suppose i'm looking at around 280rwkW (conservative with around 1.2bar)

Hi Ronin 09, list looks OK but I would strongly recommend a set of camshafts, we find the Tomei 256's designed for working with VVT to be great. They don't add too much to the max power (10 or so rwkw's) but we found 30 rwkw in the mid range and brings the turbo on boost quicker. I am also a fan of doing some headwork while the head is off, again not much extra max power but much faster spool up and way better response.

I am not a fan of thick head gaskets, size the conbustion chamber to get the right compression ratio, o'ring the head and use a standard head gasket. That's my preference.

From my memory of the GT3040 compressor flow maps, I don't think you will get to 280 rwkw at 1.2 bar, certainly not without camshafts and port work. More like 1.4 bar with those done and 1.6 without.

What manifold are you going to use the GT3040 on? Wastegate? You will need a Z32 AFM at least, I personally prefer the Q45 AFM, at 90 mm they flow better and match up to the 100 mm GT3040 inlet diameter much nicer and saves using those expensive silicone reducer hoses.

Hope that helps

Sydneykid, thanks for the info there.

I forgot to add that i'm also getting a adjustable exhaust cam sprocket, and i understand that i would idealy better to go with a a set of camshafts - probably best to do the camshafts when the head is off, while the adjustable sprocket is just there to try and bring on boost a little earlier at the moment.

I understand that most people don't like thicker head gaskets, can you ballpark what it would cost to size the comb. chambers and o-ring it? While it is off i would look to clean the ports up too. I know this is probably better and should hold boost with alot more reliability.

The power FC, injectors and pump will be done close to christmas, and i will probably do a Q45 AFM then too. I really want to get the PFC in soon, just so the mixtures are more optimum.

The turbo will be at least 6 months away, as i'm waiting to hear from a new job. It is the plan at the moment, but as we all know, plans change pretty quickly. Ideally i'd like to go with a HKS stainless manifold to suit, with an HKS external wastegate. But as funds allow, i may have a custom exhaust manifold made up by my exhaust shop - they do very good custom work.

Thanks again.

Hi ronin 09, We have found ther Tomei 256's designed for the VVT don't benefit from adjustable camshaft pulleys. Their standard (un adjusted position) is optimal, they obviously did their homework.

Port, polish, size combustion chamber and O'ring head on a 6 cylinder shouldn't be more than $1K.

I am not a fan of HKS stuff, it is simply too expensive for me. I personally don't see the value in the product, but I am only interested in the function not the look. Plus I am not a fan of top mount manifolds, turbos are heavy and sticking them up in the air does nothing for the centre of gravity.

Hope that helps some more

A lot of interesting points brought up in this thread.

Originally posted by Sydneykid

You are right about losing pipework being better for response, it's a worthwhile target.  The important thing here is the volume of air in the pipework, not the length of the pipework.

Volume of pipework and volume of plenum, for those who are moving to a front facing plenum for response, are the important factors. The 80mm vs 63mm comparison is a good one. Another one is the 5L+ most of aftermarket plenums consume vs ~2.75L for the factory one (caluclated, not measured, so may be inaccurate). Not to say 2.75L is ideal, it isn't, but it should perform better from a response point of a view.

(Warning: Uneducated fluid mechanics ahead)

I don't agree with the factory throttle body location. Runners for cylinder 3 & 4 are undoubtly favoured in my opinion. The design just seems too ameaturish to feed air evenly. I don't believe the stock fuel rail can be blamed for cylinder 3 & 4 running lean either. According to a local injector cleaner, the design seems ok and it's not as flawed as, say, one from a wrx (ej20).

Originally posted by Sydneykid

On turbo inlet systems flow bench comparisons are a bit nebulous at best.

I had originally planned to do flow bench tests on the stock plenum to see how good (or poor) its design is, but as you said, flow benches can't be used to test plenums accurately. While its possible to the test how much each individual runner can flow, this figure means little when all 6 runners are in use. The real difficulty is in trying to predict flow after reversion from adjoining inlet tracts cause pulses along the plenum. In truth, its pretty damn difficult without megabuck instrumentation that only engine designers would have.

The only thing I can do is question Nissan's design and try and improve on it. Thats what led me to try a modified factory plenum. I wanted good response with a factory sized turbo with fmic and that meant shorter piping distance, low piping volume, no increase in plenum volume and standard 60mm throttle body. A modified factory plenum would suit very well in this situation. (Before big turbo ppl jump on me, I said stock sized turbo :))

I didn't have a hand in the design of my cut'n'shut (one of GTS-t VSPEC's friends made it), but it does have a bit of thought put into it. Off the top of my head:

- Throttle body isn't mounted perpendicular to the plenum. It enters at an angle so charge disperses against the side wall of the plenum and doesn't favour cylinder 5 & 6 or neglect cylinder 1.

- Wall between throttle plate and cylinder 1 is smoothly radiused to encourage flow.

Should have the piping finished early next week and I'll be keeping a very close eye on the detonation threshold of individual cylinders. I'll call it a success if it gives a noticable increase in response and doesn't increase the tendancy to ping. Extra power is not a goal.

Pic of plenum in attached. Excuse the quality, it was taken with a film camera and scanned poorly.

This is S of S here...

Before I start, I am not trying to shoot you down Granenko. Just one point confused me. IF you can explain exactly why a front facing throttle body is better, please go... I didn't really see any reason it would be from your post... but

Originally posted by Gradenko

I don't agree with the factory throttle body location. Runners for cylinder 3 & 4 are undoubtly favoured in my opinion. The design just seems too ameaturish to feed air evenly.  

Lets put it this way; I reckon having the throttle body closer to all of the cylinders is way more intelligent than having a throttle body close to cylinder 1, but miles away from from 5 and 6, which is what is causing a few people problems with air distribution. Sure #3 and #4 are favoured, but then so is #1 and #2 in a forward facing manifold... but #5 and #6 don't get ANY air... I personally don't see how a forward facing plenum could have any positives - sure, it might shorten the amount of pipework, but maybe not decrease the volume on air in the pipework and plenum chamber. I am no fluid dynamisist (sic?!?!?!) but my in my logic, after some thought (hours and hours), the standard inlet just seems way more efficent. Or maybe I should say the position of the throttle body is more efficent - that way i exclude the modified standard inlets... I also think that Nissan have an R and D budget three times the amount of money I will make in my lifetime..... prolly more. So i think nissan spent more time with inlets, and prolly knew what they were doing. And it seems to work pretty damn fine just the way it is.

BUT, if I have 6 throttle bodies, then hella yeah... but if I had 6 throttle bodies, I would prolly have an RB26, so I wouldn't be changing it - Just found out that the Apexi V-MAX GT-R (did an 8.45 1/4 mile no less) uses the stock inlet - pretty interesting. To add to that, most of the really fast curcuit GT-Rs also use the standard inlet... i don't see a reason to change.

Son of Sydneykid

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

    • Well, after the full circus this week (new gearbag, 14 psi actuator on, injectors and AFM upgraded, and.....turbo repair) the diagnosis on the wastegate is in. It was broken. It was broken in a really strange way. The weld that holds the lever arm onto the wastegate flapper shaft broke. Broke completely, but broke in such a way that it could go back together in the "correct" position, or it could rearrange itself somewhere else along the fracture plane and sit with the flapper not parallel to the lever. So, who knows how and when exactly what happened? No-one will ever know. Was it broken like this the first time it spat the circlip and wedged itself deep into the dump? Or was it only broken when I tried to pry it back into place? (I didn't try that hard, but who knows?). Or did it break first? Or did it break between the first and second event of wierdness? Meh. It doesn't matter now. It is welded back together. And it is now held closed by a 14 psi actuator, so...the car has been tuned with the supporting mods (and the order of operations there is that the supporting mods and dyno needed to be able to be done first before adding boost, because it was pinging on <<14 psi with the new turbo with only a 6 psi actuator). And then tuned up a bit, and with the boost controller turned off throughout that process. So it was only running WG pressure and so only hit about 15-16 psi. The turbo is still ever so slightly lazier than might be preferred - like it is still a bit on the big side for the engine. I haven't tested it on the road properly in any way - just driven it around in traffic for a half hour or so. But it is like chalk and cheese compared to what it was. Between dyno numbers and driving feedback: It makes 100 kW at 3k rpm, which is OK, could be better. That's stock 2JZ territory, or RB20 with G series 550. It actually starts building boost from 2k, which is certainly better than it did recently (with all the WG flapper bullshit). Although it's hard to remember what it was like prior to all that - it certainly seems much, much better. And that makes sense, given the WG was probably starting to blow open at anything above about 3 psi anyway (with the 6 psi actuator). It doesn't really get to "full boost" (say 16 psi) until >>4k rpm. I am hopeful that this is a feature of the lack of boost controller keeping boost pressure off the actuator, because it was turned off for the dyno and off for the drives afterward. There's more to be found here, I'm sure. It made 230 rwkW at not a lot more than 6k and held it to over 7k, so there seems to be plenty of potential to get it up to 250-260rwkW with 18 psi or so, which would be a decent effort, considering the stock sized turbo inlet pipework and AFM, and the return flow cooler. According to Tao, those things should definitely put a bit of a limit on it by that sort of number. I must stress that I have not opened the throttle 100% on the road yet - well, at least not 100% and allowed it to wind all the way up. It'll have to wait until some reasonable opportunity. I'm quite looking forward to that - it feels massively better than it has in a loooong time. It's back to its old self, plus about 20% extra powers over the best it ever did before. I'm going to get the boost controller set up to maximise spool and settle at no more than ~17 psi (for now) and then go back on the dyno to see what we can squeeze out of it. There is other interesting news too. I put together a replacement tube to fit the R35 AFM in the stock location. This is the first time the tuner has worked with one, because anyone else he has tuned for has gone from Z32 territory to aftermarket ECU. No-one has ever wanted to stay Nistuned and do what I've done. Anyway, his feedback is that the R35 AFM is super super super responsive. Tiny little changes in throttle position or load turn up immediately as a cell change on the maps. Way, way more responsive than any of the old skool AFMs. Makes it quite diffifult to tune as you have to stay right on top of that so you don't wander off the cell you wanted to tune. But it certainly seems to help with real world throttle response. That's hard to separate from all the other things that changed, but the "pedal feel" is certainly crisp.
    • I'm a bit confused by this post, so I'll address the bit I understand lol.  Use an air compressor and blow away the guide coat sanding residue. All the better if you have a moisture trap for your compressor. You'd want to do this a few times as you sand the area, you wouldn't for example sand the entire area till you think its perfect and then 'confirm' that is it by blowing away the guide coat residue.  Sand the area, blow away the guide coat residue, inspect the panel, back to sanding... rinse and repeat. 
    • The detail level is about right for the money they charge for the full kit... AU$21.00 each issue, 110 issues for a total of $2,300 (I mentioned $2.2K in the first post when the exchange rate was better). $20/week is doable... 😐
    • If planning on joining us for the day(s) please indicate by filling in this form. https://forms.gle/Ma8Nn4DzYVA8uDHg7
    • You put the driver's seat on the wrong side! Incredible detail on all of this. It looks like you could learn a lot about the car just from assembling the kit.
×
×
  • Create New...