Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Sometimes i wish i'd bought the 3037 instead of the GT-RS.

Best decision i made was to get the 3037 .68 rear, making 337 on E85. Still responsive too....

  • Replies 489
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How much was it?

I brought mine off a fellow member and the turbo had 5000k's on it, from memory it ended up costing me $3200 for the complete kit. Not too bad considering what they are selling for now.

I brought mine off a fellow member and the turbo had 5000k's on it, from memory it ended up costing me $3200 for the complete kit. Not too bad considering what they are selling for now.

Good price that.

Bought my gtrs for $2750 2 years ago.

anyone got a set of indy blu's i can throw in and use the e85? ps. anyone used 100% meths? (chemcal factory next to my work can get it to me for $1.20/L

i was going to go methanol on my sr20, problem being the maintenance required. Any decent power WILL require 2 sets of indy blues per cylinder. Most people in the know say big electric pumps are OK, but mechanical driven is much better. But then they are a flamin mongrel to start with mech pump and you need to gravity feed the fuel in (thats why they run small tanks in the engine bay) then you need a special mech pump reg (not big deal). but then you need to drain you oil after each event you run at (mostly) run normal petrol through fuel system and run the engine or you will corrode the bores etc. "usually" dont run filters either as they can trap meth and turn to jelly.

Edited by GTR1993
anyone got a set of indy blu's i can throw in and use the e85? ps. anyone used 100% meths? (chemcal factory next to my work can get it to me for $1.20/L

Give it a try, might need 2 rows of indy blue's to make real big numbers!!!!!

Brazil's been useing 100% for years, would need high ambient temps to get he stuff to fire tho, even 85 gets hard when temps get below 10 degrees

good result, but I would love to see a graph of what difference it made at the same boost. I know you're saying you couldn't run more boost with the 98RON, but it was only running 14psi at the top end with a spike to 21psi as it ramped onto boost. I would just want to see what gain the fuel itself made. same boost, but with more timing etc it can apparently take. as it is a lot of that gain would be from more boost (more air + more fuel = more power of course), and i'm a bit surprised that the most you could run was 14psi on 98RON.

anyway, enjoy the new power and sweet smelling, cheap fuel. :glare:

sorry... on 1 bar the e85 made just on 300 by memory...

i cut the boost on each fuel @ the point where it was starting to die off... (dont wanna run 2 pounds more to get 5rwkw gain)

price not my main concern, it's all about the RON man, oh and the huge torque that 24 psi offers, love it!

I can agree to this.

It definitely doesn't have that typical weak RB25 ramp up sound when on the dyno. 180or200's car had me thinking it was an rb30 the way its mid range picked up instantly and roared as the loud pedal was opened up.

Thizzle made 301 with a GT-RS and stock motor 3 or so years ago.

There is hope!

I'm with Ash; sounds like he was on a happy dyno or the settings were incorrect. Did he ever back the power claim on an independent dyno?

I made 274rwkw with cams and head porting. This figure was also reproduced on two other dynos, so i dare say it was accurate.

With E85 i could see the GTRS making 280+rwkw on a std motor.

On the DVD it made like 298, 297, 301 or something along those lines.

But on the same dyno.

To back up the claimed figure it needs to be run on another dyno.

Like mine made 274@EAS, 268@Racingline (SAU VIC Dyno day) and 272@Autosalon. Thus i know my mechanic's dyno is relatively accurate.

Nice results :devil:

Excuse the ignorance, I haven't bothered to read anything about this fuel...

but 85% ethanol? People were pissing and moaning about 5-10% ethanol destroying fuel systems etc (I personally ran V-power racing for a period of time with no issues, and 1 tank of 100RON United which I think has ethanol as well, with no issues) but 85%?

================================================================================

==================================

Has this question been addressed? Also, what is the equivalent PULP RON (if such a comparison can be made)?

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...