Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Well out of 3x 32's that I personally know over here all making the same power (my RB30 making an early 250rwhp, and two mates with RB20's sporting 25 turbos and all the usually bolt on stuff.. one untuned the other a de+t tuned), we've all run 102/103mph.

yeh thats around what you would expect for the mods listed. 100mph on the stock computer boost and turbo like the others are running is going well!

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

these things are about as accurate as counting. i have seen another app using teh built in gps and tested on 2 phones at the same time in the same car. readings were over 1 second apart.

Yeh I can't really vouch for the accuracy seeing as ive never tested it against a real timed run. But I chose this app over about five similar ones due to several tests and reviews by different motoring blogs and others saying it's quite close to true. Within 0.1 on a 1/4 and +- 5% in power. And it does read consistent times I had three in a row. 14.62, 14.46, 14.42. Then changed launch style and got 14.01

Maybe their track is just a bit longer than a 1/4 mile :D

eheh, no it's a very good track, NHRA approved here in Canada.

Went with my friend who also have an R32 with same bolt-on as me and he managed a 98mph .. guess I'm a good driver :) Still need to take these 60ft down. I did 97mph when my clutch started to slip on me.

Some of the discrepancies btn your GPS system and the track may be due to the rollout at the track.

Couple of years ago Motor magazine tested a Porche at the quarter and had their VBox (GPS based testing system) strapped in the car as well. The result was that the VBox showed a slower time by around a 10th than the track timer - which was put down to the rollout. The car was already doing around 8klm an hour before the timing beams were triggered at the track compared to their VBox which starts timing from the time the car starts moving.

Yeh I can't really vouch for the accuracy seeing as ive never tested it against a real timed run. But I chose this app over about five similar ones due to several tests and reviews by different motoring blogs and others saying it's quite close to true. Within 0.1 on a 1/4 and +- 5% in power. And it does read consistent times I had three in a row. 14.62, 14.46, 14.42. Then changed launch style and got 14.01

Hopefully the time is correct, but 160rwkw from a cooled and zorsted RB20 is an all mighty ask. I definitely wouldnt think the power is accurate at all imo.

If its true, im selling up, because thats what my nearly standard neo makes! :)

Yeh I thought that was high. But I've already had a few surprises from this car so I'm thinking it's possibly got a chipped / tuned ECU

Also brass button clutch may be helping my MPH

I still don't believe this whole 2-3psi extra crap with a full exhaust. I have to dial in 25% duty increase into the ebc to get 12psi (with a 10psi actuator) and I've got as free flowing exhaust as possible.

Im skeptical of producing fly wheel kilowatts are the rear wheels with only a zorst and a cooler. But all dynos are different, the mph is where its backed up. And a 160rwkw 32 should def be passing 100mph like most are saying theirs are :)

Hmmm zorst and cooler and 206rwkw, now that sounds nice:D

I still don't believe this whole 2-3psi extra crap with a full exhaust. I have to dial in 25% duty increase into the ebc to get 12psi (with a 10psi actuator) and I've got as free flowing exhaust as possible.

ive had dyno print out's done after every modification and at one case a before/after dyno run on the same day after installing an intercooler.

Both dyno runs were done on the same day, seperated by a couple of hours. Full exhaust, stock ecu, standard actuator etc

As you can see it jumps up to 13psi where it drops down afterwards

1574kwmh7.th.jpg

Im skeptical of producing fly wheel kilowatts are the rear wheels with only a zorst and a cooler. But all dynos are different, the mph is where its backed up. And a 160rwkw 32 should def be passing 100mph like most are saying theirs are :D

Hmmm zorst and cooler and 206rwkw, now that sounds nice:D

How is it any different from r33's doing 180kw on nothing more on exhaust and fmic? After all, thats what they produce flywheel too :)

Please do some reading up in both rb20/rb25 turbo upgrade threads to get a better idea

well I have a peak boost of 0.85 BAR which I think is 12.3 PSI ? Stock boost in rb20 is 12 psi. So no huge increase for me. Will have to attend next whoop as Wednesday and see how I go.

Edit: boost reading is from my defi guage. ... Not my iPhone :)

well I have a peak boost of 0.85 BAR which I think is 12.3 PSI ? Stock boost in rb20 is 12 psi. So no huge increase for me. Will have to attend next whoop as Wednesday and see how I go.

stock boost in a rb20 is 10psi due to the 10psi actuator on the standard turbo.

Hence why r33 owners put rb20 actuators on their rb25 turbo's to get 10psi :)

How is it any different from r33's doing 180kw on nothing more on exhaust and fmic? After all, thats what they produce flywheel too :D

Please do some reading up in both rb20/rb25 turbo upgrade threads to get a better idea

Yeh its definitely not any different, and I dont believe many R33's would be making 180rwkw on just a cooler and zorst either lol.

Considering they put out 130-140rwkw stocko, throwing a zorst and cooler on for an extra 40rwkw is a pretty good gain!

In the end all figures are useless anyway. MPH is the true test, so lets hope the thread starter gets the 32 to the track and can get some good mph

Im a jealous 25 owner here, I cant handle figures so easily near mine ok :) jks

Edited by Granthem
ive had dyno print out's done after every modification and at one case a before/after dyno run on the same day after installing an intercooler.

Both dyno runs were done on the same day, seperated by a couple of hours. Full exhaust, stock ecu, standard actuator etc

As you can see it jumps up to 13psi where it drops down afterwards

1574kwmh7.th.jpg

All that sheet shows is that your setup spikes.. if it was running 13psi I would expect to see 13psi solid, not tapering back to ACTUATOR PRESSURE..

Here are my shitty boost curves from the old RB20 and the current RB30 (I have since smoothed out the intial spike and that little hump).

RB20_dyno.jpg

RB30_dyno.jpg

One instance does not a generalisation make..

All that sheet shows is that your setup spikes.. if it was running 13psi I would expect to see 13psi solid, not tapering back to ACTUATOR PRESSURE..

Here are my shitty boost curves from the old RB20 and the current RB30 (I have since smoothed out the intial spike and that little hump).

One instance does not a generalisation make..

my sheet shows that due to the exhaust and fmic, the boost is larger than the factory 10psi.

You can see that the whole run (the blue line) stays above 10psi right till the end. So regardless if its not holding a solid 13psi, its still pushing more than 10psi throughout the whole run.

Mate, I'm runnin in my R32 Gtst 14psi, dyno'd at 165.6rwkw/457Nm @ 6500rpm tuned on a 28deg day by Dr Drift and only managed a 14.452 at 98.7mph.

I have a full 3" turbo back, hi flow cat, intercooler, pod, bigger fuel pump & boost controller for the life of me couldn't break the 100mph mark no matter how many times I tried(did 15 runs)

My best re-action time was .440.

There's a big difference of what a 20yr old car can do compared to a fresh outa the factory car sprouting figures on paper is meant to do.

Mine before remapping was puttin out 116rwkw with all the mods I have listed and was running lean as up top before remap.

The only way you will know is to get it on the strip & see for yourself- if your up in Qld your welcome to come to our next Drag day & see how you go-we would love to see you there-Qld Events team out :P

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...