Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Nothing wrong with the GTR, it belongs to a member on this forum.

32 GTR had hks hard pipe kit, 100mil jap cooler, dump back HKS system, fuel pump, mines ecu, and from memory 268atw.

My E4 had an axle back exhaust and pushed 188atw with a failing fuel pump. As stated in this state it was 0-100 in under 5s and 0-200 in 13s. The evo would match the GTR at 70kph in 1st gear, then top out 2nd just over 90 when the GTR would catch it as the GTR would hang onto 2nd until close to 120. By that time I was running out of torque in high end 3rd gear and the GTR would walk away from 140+.

GTR stock weight is like 1550? My E4 hit the weighbridge at 1300.

Evo 9s are 1450, having driven one with an Evo green at a failing 240kw, I can say it is significantly faster than the said GTR even in its current spec of over 300atw using HKS 2510s. Owner has driven the E9 and confirmed the same. That E9 also had no spool problems and would easily overpower what I had prior (all with the capability of 300atw on E85 from the green turbo - td06sl2 20g).

To me that is a lot different to the way I read your first statement. This makes a lot more sense.

So you are saying the Evo4 was EVEN with the GTR in 1st gear, then the Evo4 got ahead for a short time when the GTR caught back up and passed it from then on.

Even a small difference in weight can make a big difference in acceleration there is no denying that. I used to have a turbocharged commodore weighing in at only 1300kg and even with a moderate power figure of 225rwkw it was even with many 300rwkw cammed LS1's that would have weighed an extra 200kgs or more.

Nothing wrong with the GTR, it belongs to a member on this forum.

32 GTR had hks hard pipe kit, 100mil jap cooler, dump back HKS system, fuel pump, mines ecu, and from memory 268atw.

My E4 had an axle back exhaust and pushed 188atw with a failing fuel pump. As stated in this state it was 0-100 in under 5s and 0-200 in 13s. The evo would match the GTR at 70kph in 1st gear, then top out 2nd just over 90 when the GTR would catch it as the GTR would hang onto 2nd until close to 120. By that time I was running out of torque in high end 3rd gear and the GTR would walk away from 140+.

GTR stock weight is like 1550? My E4 hit the weighbridge at 1300.

Evo 9s are 1450, having driven one with an Evo green at a failing 240kw, I can say it is significantly faster than the said GTR even in its current spec of over 300atw using HKS 2510s. Owner has driven the E9 and confirmed the same. That E9 also had no spool problems and would easily overpower what I had prior (all with the capability of 300atw on E85 from the green turbo - td06sl2 20g).

Evo X does 0-200km/hr in 23sec, a Evo VI does it in 21sec, but a Evo IV with a cat back can do it in 13sec?!?

LOL

EVOS are not that light either, I know that the Evo 7 and up are more than 1400kg, which is equal to or more than a R33/34 GTS-t or GT-T

My searching says Evo 7 curb weight is 1,320–1,400 kg.

The difference in 0-100 between an Evo and a GTST or GTT would be traction on launch.

The above example is a GTR versus an Evo, there is a decent weight difference between those.

Evo X does 0-200km/hr in 23sec, a Evo VI does it in 21sec, but a Evo IV with a cat back can do it in 13sec?!?

LOL

Everything didn't line up. If his car did that 200 speed, the gtr he spoke of is clearly faster if it walks away after 140km/h. If that is the case that gtr has a 0 to 200 almost as fast as veyron... But yeah back on topic.

Tao has there been any progress on the electric spoiling system? I've been thinking about it and this thing is going to affect the air flow meter setup. Maybe you will need two afm's. Or run a map sensor or create a ugly pipe with a u pipe coming out which holds the fan system in place.

Any one's got a dyno sheet of a evo including torque curve? If there's a turbo that has similar or better downlow torque then a evo then there might be a chance of beating it.

Any way, ATR43G1 is in the test car now. Super responsive. Should give it a new name: DDT. Standing for Dose dynamic turbochargers (that came from Trent :laugh: ). instant boost, makes lots of sucking, splatering and dosing sound, kept the BOV very busy. expecting 230rwkws with stock or better response. will post result soon.

atr43g1front.JPG

Any one's got a dyno sheet of a evo including torque curve? If there's a turbo that has similar or better downlow torque then a evo then there might be a chance of beating it.

Any way, ATR43G1 is in the test car now. Super responsive. Should give it a new name: DDT. Standing for Dose dynamic turbochargers (that came from Trent :laugh: ). instant boost, makes lots of sucking, splatering and dosing sound, kept the BOV very busy. expecting 230rwkws with stock or better response. will post result soon.

video footage or it didn't happen!!!

video footage or is didn't happen!!!

I have a gcg turbo that basically does this, highflowed BB rb20 turbo, it is very believable. 230kw isn't a huge torque increase over the stock turbo, they will make 200rwkw if you really lean on them.

Evo's Australia forums now.

EAU

Evo's are lighter. If we are gonna talk shit on skylines we should be saying silvia's are faster.... Which they are :rofl:

covering my ears now, lalalalalallaalal dont hear anything, mm skyline lalalalla

  • Haha 1

I have a gcg turbo that basically does this, highflowed BB rb20 turbo, it is very believable. 230kw isn't a huge torque increase over the stock turbo, they will make 200rwkw if you really lean on them.

lol, wasn't saying it isn't believable. Just wanta hear it.

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

    • Thanks for posting, your engine bay looks tops. I'm fairly sure you posted the wrong video though, I think you were supposed to upload the one from your "private test road" where it's banging off the limiter with the gate open?
    • This is something to be careful of. I did a bit of digging on the NM35, as I spend a lot of time on near brand new cars and CANBus related stuff, which uses the same "OBD2" plug for a fair chunk of making my life easy. The NM35, does NOT support OBD2. The data pin is actually on Pin3, which is a manufacturer specific pin, and requires Consult3 to connect to the NM35. Your low voltage, is either because the NM35 doesn't have 12V to the constant power pin on the J1962 (OBD2) connector, OR, it is attempting the standard comms, (CanBus, K Line, etc) and can't see any voltage on those pins. Some people have had success accessing SOME data from the vehicle on OBD2 specification, using a module that supports KPW. My assumption, like Duncan has stated, it will likely actually be JOBD, where there is some cross over with the OBD2 and JOBD standards. Note, lots of "OBD2" dongles, do NOT support KPW, which is what you need for a lot of Japanese vehicles of this era (And even up until recent years!), EG, Subaru, Suzuki, etc.    The end of this thread is probably worth a read, as some people did find a way to get a display up in the NM35 recently, looks like someone implemented all the stuff needed to make it work. (The right protocols).  
    • Depending on the purpose of the car, and how much more fabbing you want to do, and what clearances you have, you could look to raise the motor, which will raise the front diff up. Likely would mean altering the chassis rails etc etc, hence the more fab work you'd need to do. However, this can create issues, not just in clearance with everything fitting under the bonnet, but you've also raised a LOT of weight up in the car, and this will DEFINITELY alter handling characteristics (But, so will how much weight you've already added to the front end). You'll also have to deal with the fact the gearbox to rear diff is now out of alignment too for the tail shaft, and alter the angle of the diff, or deal with a bit of potential vibration. Raising the motor an inch up, is effectively the same as making the whole car sit higher by not lowering it as far. So one inch higher motor, theoretically means you can drop the car an extra inch lower, and maintain the same angles in the CVs. Again, depends on the purpose of the car. If it's a just cruiser on the street car, maybe won't be an issue. If it's meant to be a time attack car, I can see you not wanting to raise the motor. This is just for you to ponder as an idea.
    • Have you not seen geospy.ai? It can now give GPS co ords to within a metre from a photo, even if it's a random photo you take inside. Supposedly at the moment only the government/law enforcement has access to that... Supposedly...
    • I've got the rear ones, they're certainly beefy. I need to take them to my driveshaft guru to check over, he's very fussy about the quality of components so I'll let you know if they are made of cheese by a blind man.   Are you in Australia? A mate just had a set of EN26 shafts made for his K20 Lotus by our fabricator which were quite cheap (compared to Driveshaft Shop) so if you can procure the CV's and draw what you need he'd make them for ~$800 for the pair.
×
×
  • Create New...