Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I told John Keen at hi Tech Dyno that i want at least 200kw at the wheels in my R32 GTR with just a cat back exhaust and he said that they should come standard with between 197-212kw at the wheels.

Should i get 200kw at the wheels with a cat back exhaust and how much boost???

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/243311-stock-r32-gtr-power/
Share on other sites

get a vi-pic + 3 inch turbo back exhaust + i bar boost and you should get about 255 kw @ the rears

thats about what im getting

and pray you ceramic turbos dont fall apart

Edited by gazza750
Im getting 240KW on 10psi, HKS piping, Z32AFM + 3.5" exhaust

Fark thats pretty good!

10psi = +0.7 Bar (Approx), which is stock boost. You for real or you gota happy dyno LOL! :banana:

Was at a Dyno Day and saw a stock R32 GTR dyno and hit 155kW at all 4's

Then when doing some research, I read it was about 185kW at all 4's, so all dynos differ.

dynoed 1 a few weeks back..

220rwkw completely standard

WOW they only came from the factory brand new with 206KW @ the flywheel

so i dont understand how you get a drivetrain gain when its always a drivetrain loss

Thats the Japanese Manufacturers Gentlemans agreed value that all cars will not exceed.

Its been covered on the forums a number of times now.

Cause if the GTR only has 206kw then there is something seriously wrong with both my V8's that make more than that but dont perform as well.

Fark thats pretty good!

10psi = +0.7 Bar (Approx), which is stock boost. You for real or you gota happy dyno LOL! :rofl:

Was at a Dyno Day and saw a stock R32 GTR dyno and hit 155kW at all 4's

Then when doing some research, I read it was about 185kW at all 4's, so all dynos differ.

Yeah i guess all dynos will differ between results but for an odd 100kw is a bit extreme, ill post the dyno sheet up for a look see its approx 10-11psi making 238.4 (i think) at all four, this tune was done at Race Solutions in Sydney after putting a new engine in the car with the odd modification as said. Hmmm ill have to check it out tonight then :laugh:

Yeah i guess all dynos will differ between results but for an odd 100kw is a bit extreme, ill post the dyno sheet up for a look see its approx 10-11psi making 238.4 (i think) at all four, this tune was done at Race Solutions in Sydney after putting a new engine in the car with the odd modification as said. Hmmm ill have to check it out tonight then :rofl:

At all 4 wheels even... I was gonna say was it at the rear wheels.

LOL! All good then.

What engine did you put in? Like a new RB26 or N1?

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...