Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FMIC on standard turbo is crap.

When i had mine fmic fitted to standard turbo ( i also had SAFC) - it destroyed the car..... was a much nice and quicker car to drive with standard IC. I decided to piss the car off instead of replacing turbo and the like.

It just left aq bad taste in my mouth.

Daniel

Paul,

YOu know people buy kidneys/internal organs for large sums of cash! (read: 25k for a kidney!) now there's a gauranteed source of income....

until you run out of shit to sell.....

mmm, embalmy!

If im older and I don't need mine, im putting them on eBay!

yep .... just wasnt happy with it, had comp retuned and few other times tried to make it "nicer" but in the end i just didnt like it.... so waved the bitch goodbye.....

Daniel

PS - thanks Kim for the compliment. ;->

Originally posted by adam 32

macka has run a 12.98 on one of your crappy 'high-flowed' turbos which still stands as the fastest R33 gtst on the forum i believe. he makes full boost by 3500rpm which alot more driveable than the 4500rpm lagmonsters going around today. do some research cos i believe you are the one 'dribbling shit'

So you've obviously talked to macka to find that he's had months of issues finding the right match of compressor/exhaust housing's to compressor/exhaust wheels. He's also had issues with compressor surge, so all the time and money he's spent dont you think it would have been easier to just buy an aftermarket turbo? Go for a drive in paul's car and tell me its a lag monster... just remember to bring a spare pair of jocks.

does the name GCG turbochargers mean anything to you? i dont think they would be so successful if high flows were so 'shit'... there are plenty of people making 350 at the wheels with alot better driveability on these high flows.

back to the original argument tho, have we all agreed now that for 5,000 you cant replace the turbo.

How much do GCG charge to "hi-flow" a turbo?

Nissan GTS-T R32 & R33 Upgrade of Standard Turbocharger:-

The factory turbocharger is a ball bearing T3 sized unit with a ceramic turbine wheel. In upgrading this unit we replace the ball bearing pack with a new one while replacing the turbine wheel and compressor wheel with hi-flowed models. The upgrade comes in two stages.

XTRGTST-STG1 450hp rated $2250.00

XTRGTST-STG2 500hp rated $2450.00

Taken direct from their site. Oh gee, why dont I send off my turbo and for $2250 I can get it "hi-flowed" to 450hp... get real, you're best of buying a gt28 or a gt30.

hey adam try toning down your comments and stop being so confrentational!

and just so you know macka doens't have the fasts R33 gtst

that goes to some guy in qld who has run a 12.8

then theres the vic guy whos run an 11 but hes has a

hks worked rb26 in the engine bay.

Originally posted by adam 32

macka has run a 12.98 on one of your crappy 'high-flowed' turbos which still stands as the fastest R33 gtst on the forum i believe.

Actually you gotta do a helluva lot better than a 12.98 in a GTS-T to be at the top of the list nowadays. Take a look at my thread here (http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/sh...&threadid=22444)

R33 GTS-T

01. 12.260 = Buster (1.85 60ft, 118.30mph)

02. 12.380 = matlowth (2.38 60ft, 123.45mph)

03. 12.408 = WET33 (1.98 60ft, 111mph)

04. 12.412 = Merli (2.03 60ft, 114.47mph)

05. 12.900 = BOOSTD (2.2 60ft, 111.49mph)

06. 12.988 = macka (2.25 60ft, 113.35mph)

That 12.260 was done with ~320rwkw with more power to go so a 12-flat isn't far from happening. It looks like Macka has the power just not the traction to put down a -really- good time. If he could get a 2.0 60ft a 12.5 would be on the cards. Still though I personally would be happy with any <13.0sec daily driven GTS-T.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...