Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Had the car back on the dyno yesterday - some dyno figures for you.

The first two dyno runs were done in 4th gear in my car which is not a 1 to 1 ratio (I'm running a close ratio Nismo box)

The second of those two dyno's you will see overlayed over another dyno (thick black lines). This compares my twin scroll (thin lines) with a single scroll 3071 on a 6Boost mani with stock intake (thick lines).

As you will see I'm making 20 psi by around 3600 to 3700 rpm - insane considering this was not done in 5th gear (4th gear in normal car). It is also remakable given that I am running a .78 ex AR and 4 litre plenum and short runners.

The second two dynos were done in 5th gear (4th in normal car) - so we are now running a 1 to 1 ratio. Interesting how the gear ratios affect torque and hp?

You will note that my boost is falling away in the higher rpm as I need to sort out the boost controller so that it will hold boost.

If I can get it to hold boost I think I will be able to maintain max torque to the redline resulting in even more hp.

Played around with VCT and is on at 1500 rpm and off at 7000 rpm.

Played around with ex cam settings and ended up retarding the ex cam a few degree. We lost about 10 hp at peak but gained 15 at peak through the midrange. Overall retarding the cam resulted in more area under the curve even tho it was at the expennse of peak hp. It also spooled the turbo about 150 to 200 rpm earlier

As you can see the temps in Perth yesterday were hot but it still cranked out some reasonable numbers.

I took it for a drive last night in the cooler (but still warm) conditions and this car hauls ass. It actually doesn't feel like a turbo car it feels like a big cube V8 under the bonnet. By 4000 rpm it is hauling ass all the way to the 8000 rpm cut out. I can't wait to fix up the boost issues and take it for a drive in cooler conditions.

Anyway enough of my ranting.

Dyno1-1.jpg

Dyno2.jpg

Dyno3.jpg

Dyno4.jpg

Edited by juggernaut1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/260427-my-sr20-build-twin-scroll-3071/
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Although a few bugs to iron out .....its a fantastic car to drive as it is. What the graphs don't show is the part throttle response.......which is just scintellating.

Edited by juggernaut1
  • 3 weeks later...

Only little Tomei 260/260 hla's and yet easily rev's to 8000.

Boost is pretty savage - I've nearly spun the car a couple of times coming onto freeway on ramps with part throttle. :P

I'm also getting compressor surge in the higher gears under 4000 rpm.

Edited by juggernaut1

Lots of power, must go great. I miss my S15.

My S15 ran a T518Z, made 259rwkw, around 340rwhp , which was plenty fast, but it also made 200rwkw , around 266rwhp, at 4000rpm. I had a PAR engineering gearbox, all runs in fifth - 1:1 ratio.

It was mounted on a HPI manifold. The manifold gave my 10kw at the top and 22kw at 4000rpm. Best $1,500 I ever spent. Transformed the car.

I only ran the car once at Calder, blew the clutch mid track, ran 13.0 @ 70mph. The SS Commodore in the other lane ran 13.6 @ 106mph.

Yes the 518Z is a great turbo - fantastic mid-range.

I'm currently running the short runner/big plenum Hypertune intake - so I'm sure if I went back to the long runner/small plenum stock intake my mid-range would pickup - which would be an interesting exercise for another day.

Comparing dyno sheets with mxfly at the time revealed that the Trust unit made 80rwkw more at 4000rpm than the HKS GT-RS. mxfly sold his turbo soon after lol

I too had the Tomei cams you have, doing all my parts adding one at a time on the same dyno revealed the cams added more power than any other mod. The turbo added 20rwkw ( 180 - 200rwkw) then the cams were added and it went from 200rwkw to 225 rwkw. Manifold and more tuning, other small parts, 100 octane shell fuel, made up the rest.

Gearbox aside these are the perfect RWD vehicles at an affordable price in my opinion.

  juggernaut1 said:
Yes the 518Z is a great turbo - fantastic mid-range.

I'm currently running the short runner/big plenum Hypertune intake - so I'm sure if I went back to the long runner/small plenum stock intake my mid-range would pickup - which would be an interesting exercise for another day.

Nice result mate, just wondering what the Hypertune plenum set you back? Considering getting one for my S13, PM me if you want

Thanks

Not cheap - from memory plenum was just under $2K, plus their 76mm throttle body around $630, plus their fuel rail. Hi Octane sells their gear so you could check out the current prices on thier website.

Not sure whether they make one for the s13 at the moment(I assume this is the high port SR). I have the low port SR. However, I have spoken to the guys at Hypertune on behalf of somebody else and they indicated they would build a custom one for the high port motor.

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

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...