Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What intercooler is that Harey?

Its a Trust Turnflow intercooler, although I bought it second hand so I dont know how old it is. It seems to be cooling quite well when you touch the end tanks, just seems to have a lot of pressure drop.

Hoping to replace it with a blitz return flow one day.

Awesome result.

Minor sacrifice of power off boost, then comes on song with standard turbo and doesn't let up from there. This is what the people want :)

as you can see my intercooler is quite restrictive and the gap in pressure increases with rpm. If I can get it to hold 18-19psi, I am sure I can get well into the 250's.

It has made street driving an absolute blast and it is 100% a street car.

I agree with Wolverine's observation, very similar sort of result vs the GT-RS. I went back and checked it against my old GT2871 48T high flow as well, and saw similar characteristics on the graph. That old setup only lagged behind the std setup to 2500rpm and made 225kW on 12psi. If this ATR43 SS1 offers similar transient throttle response characteristics, and this result at full load it's got to be the sort of setup a smart owner will choose. I like the look of it.

It does appear that pressure drop across the intercooler is costing some top end, but what sort of boost control is employed? An EBC may help to offset what's going on with the cooler, although turbine flow may also be part of the equation. What's the vibe from your tuner and Stao on these fronts? To be really honest it doesn't look to be want a higher peak power figure for other than bench racing. If it was able to hold peak torque from current 4700 through to 5700ish, it would have a really fat top end so you don't need to rev it hard. That would be good.

It's a street car, but also interested to know if it runs a quiet (legal)exhaust spec.

Awesome result.

Minor sacrifice of power off boost, then comes on song with standard turbo and doesn't let up from there. This is what the people want :)

This, inside a stock looking housing, is exactly what people want, or at least I want.

That, and the SS-2 Prototype which was a few pages back now which made 320rwkw with full boost at about ~3700, and you have pretty much got what 100% of all people want who arent doing massive internals work to their engine.

Oh yeah, inside the standard housing too :)

I'm not so sure it can be done with the standard housing...yet...Stao?

And if it can, it will most certainly be laggier or down on power up top.

This, inside a stock looking housing, is exactly what people want, or at least I want.

That, and the SS-2 Prototype which was a few pages back now which made 320rwkw with full boost at about ~3700, and you have pretty much got what 100% of all people want who arent doing massive internals work to their engine.

Yep if it can be done inside a stock housing I would consider it as a replacement for my turbo should it ever die being as GCG really turned me off with their customer service.

It plots like a HKS GT-RS.

Here's SS-1 VS GTRS based on a 12 sec run as the GTRS was tuned on 12 secs ramp. We only did like 3/4 of a run as the AFM plug vibrated it self out and made a massive knock. Trent was abit scared to put it back on.

Thick red line is ss-1, thin red line and green line is GTRS

atr43ss112secrun.jpg

So the big question mister hypergear...can we get something like that^ put into the standard housings aka high flow?

Yes can be done. Just odd that I have to charge you $50 more for the alloy sleeve then a brand new SS-1.

Yes can be done. Just odd that I have to charge you $50 more for the alloy sleeve then a brand new SS-1.

Can we have a picture of a brandnew SS-1 next to a standard turbo housing? Curious how different it looks and if it would pass the EPA/Defect inspection.

It does appear that pressure drop across the intercooler is costing some top end, but what sort of boost control is employed? An EBC may help to offset what's going on with the cooler, although turbine flow may also be part of the equation. What's the vibe from your tuner and Stao on these fronts? To be really honest it doesn't look to be want a higher peak power figure for other than bench racing. If it was able to hold peak torque from current 4700 through to 5700ish, it would have a really fat top end so you don't need to rev it hard. That would be good.

It's a street car, but also interested to know if it runs a quiet (legal)exhaust spec.

It is just running off the actuator, but the boost pressure before the intercooler looks perfect flat ~21-20psi. The drop down to 20psi after 6,000rpm is even there on Tao's car. Thats just the turbo running out of puff. The issue is the intercooler pressure drop as you can see I can only get just over 15psi into the engine. The previous turbo had exactly the same behaviour, I could not get more than ~15psi into the engine no matter how much I cranked the boost up even with a large 0.82 housing! I tried EBC's and they did nothing. Trent my tuner said he reckons even if you unplugged the hose from the actuator you wouldnt get anymore boost up top (previous turbo).

I run a 3" fujitsubo catback exhaust which is very quiet, on my previous turbo it was restricting power ~5-8kw but to me its worth it so I dont get any unwanted police attention.

Can we have a picture of a brandnew SS-1 next to a standard turbo housing? Curious how different it looks and if it would pass the EPA/Defect inspection.

comphousings.JPG

They share the exact same housing geometry, except the surge grove for stock comp wheel needs to go (high lighted). To use that as the SS comp housing the whole inlet part of the stock comp housing has to be machined out and resleeved to have a flat bore.

Just comparing mine to Hareys for a minute and its amazing how different yet the same they are

heres mine

DSC01688.jpg

Hareys

244kw_power_torque.jpg

I dont have a graph but I had much the same boost pressures as well. My cooler is also pretty crappy but at the manifold I had 18psi dropping of to 15psi.

be interesting to see them side by side at the lights ;)

fantastic result Geoff!!! things have definitely improved from the guinea pig days when i ran some of the HG proto's - i made a touch more with my 98 tune, but full boost was a good 500rpm later from memory

this is the turbo for the street guys, well done Stao!

Stao what sort of results would you expect from your SS-1 at 14psi, and can you build a 'smaller' turbo into a T3 housing?

Perhaps 2871 52t spec into your .64 housing with 3 nozzle FNT tech + your .60 3" comp cover, do able?

the SS-1 should make just under 240rwkws on 14psi. I can only run a single nozzle in those as the turbine housing doesn't have enough room to run more. I believe the SS-1 is the perfect combination for 250rwkws applications. Smaller profiles is do able, but lack in peek power and torque but doesn't make any differences in response just like the GTRS comparison above. I'm pretty happy with the way its currently set.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...