Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Some updates. This is a result sent in from Toshi, based on a Manual Skyline with our high flowed OP6 turbocharger. Made 277rwkws on 17psi, P 98 fuel.

op6hiflow377rwkw.jpg

Little update on the ATR28SS series on sr20det engine.

This particular prototype is a modified SS15 in a .64 rear, how ever the modification did not take effect. How ever still made a reasonably responsive 255rwkws @ 18psi on pump 98 fuel.

power.jpg

boost.JPG

This turbocharger against the most responsive GT2871R in .64 turbine housing run, and beats it in both power and response:
vsgt2871power.JPG

vsgt2871boost.JPG




I also conducted a test evaluating factory 2.5 inches induction pipe Vs a 3 inches induction pipe. Results as shown:
25inchpipeincar.jpg

Differences is 13kws at 255rwkws application: Red is with 2.5 inches induction pipe, while Green is the normal 3 inches induction pipe.
inductionpower.JPG




inductionboost.JPG

  • Like 1

Your still getting a fair bit of boost drop cause you using the 1bar actuator

Your boost is going from 20psi to 17 psi by redline

Mine held 20psi pretty solid with your 20psi actuator you supplied with the normal 1/2 a hole preload as seen in my dyno

I know most people leave the standard twin turbo intake piping on GTR's but has anyone actually done some back to back runs like above to see if there is an increase in power moving to bigger piping or are the turbo's too small to bother?

I was modifying 300zxs for a couple of years and induction pipes on them do make a very noticeable difference. So I believe proper induction pipes can also affect GTR's performance in a positive way.

  • Like 1

I was modifying 300zxs for a couple of years and induction pipes on them do make a very noticeable difference. So I believe proper induction pipes can also affect GTR's performance in a positive way.

When I get home I will post up dyno sheets of z32s 2" vs 2.5" piping...the difference is around the 40rwhp mark. A gtr may not gain that much however, a z32 has around 2.5m of chqrge piping on each bank.

Edited by Super Drager
  • Like 2

Ok as promised:

Piping comparison:

EX000002.jpg

P0003549.jpg

The car was tuned with the ZEM in its original setup with the 2" OEM piping and Stillen SMICs. Once the tune was perfected with this setup and all of the runs were made, the only thing that was changed was the intercoolers and piping. The exact same programs were used in the second test as was used in the first (there were three different programs created along the way to handle pumpfuel, racefuel, and maximum boost).

1.2BAR:
DynoCompare1.2bar.jpg

1.3BAR
DynoCompare1.3bar.jpg

1.4BAR:
DynoCompare1.4bar.jpg

1.5BAR:

DynoCompare1.5bar.jpg

1.6BAR:

DynoCompare1.6bar.jpg

1.7BAR:

DynoCompare1.7bar.jpg

1.8BAR:

DynoCompare1.8bar.jpg

After looking through the data to see where the differences were in the other datalogged pieces of information, it is obvious to see that the engine is simply breathing more air, especially down low with the larger piping/intercoolers. The A/F is a bit different between the runs on the bottom end simply because it is using a different part of the fuel table as a result of the additional airflow. More air = more fuel delivered = richer mixture. On the top-end of things, the A/F is slightly different as well and it will account for some of the improved power. I did not want to change the programming that was used as I felt that this would lead to possible suspicion by some folks. If I had adjusted the program to make the A/F the same, the difference in numbers would have been even more dramatic through the bottom end up to midrange, showing greater improvement in bottom end, and with a slight detriment to top end power as it seems to want to run a tad bit leaner with the new setup, albeit a rather marginal difference though. It would be even nicer to see the difference if Dee's car had 60mm throttlebodies, which are essentially the same size as the 2.5" piping we installed. Even despite this limitation, it was apparent that the piping and intercoolers contributed quite a bit on their own. I believe we were really tapping out though on the benefit of the piping/intercoolers as the power was increased on the top end because of the limitation of the throttlebody. At this peak power level (650RWHP), there is a tremendous amount of air flowing through each throttlebody and I believe the 2.0" OEM throttlebodies started to become our bottleneck.

So, this is the preliminary dynochart data and qualitative review of what I see so far and as soon as I get everything together in the quantitative analysis department, I will be more than happy to share it all.

Just food for though :)


Turbos are GT28RS (2860-5). Pump Fuel until 1.6BAR, C16 from 1.7BAR onwards.

Edited by Super Drager

Thanks for posting it.

The more air= more fuel = richer mixtures comment is a bit odd though.

Possibility he is running AFM(s), so more air "sensored" by the AFM, more fuel is injected - accordingly to the map.. where as a MAP based car will inject as much fuel as required as per the RPM vs. Boost/Vacuum cell.

Possibility he is running AFM(s), so more air "sensored" by the AFM, more fuel is injected - accordingly to the map.. where as a MAP based car will inject as much fuel as required as per the RPM vs. Boost/Vacuum cell.

If anything it would be because the higher load cells are probably richer (assuming a stockish fuel map).

Actually after I replaced the stock R33 rubber induction pipe with a proper 3 inch metal item. My fuel actually went lean in upper revs. It has to be touched up.

When I get home I will post up dyno sheets of z32s 2" vs 2.5" piping...the difference is around the 40rwhp mark. A gtr may not gain that much however, a z32 has around 2.5m of chqrge piping on each bank.

not sure why we're comparing intake piping to cooler piping but its nice to know the difference it makes

was the turbo slightly more laggy with the bigger piping as a trade off from response to more top end power?

Upload a video. Which we machined a bunch of comp housings today using CNC:

The comp housing profile was done by CNC too, except the lathe tip is sprayed with oil that can't be seen. Takes about 10 mints to complete a comp cover from Castings. Which working by hand would roughly be 70 mints.

  • Like 1

Add in another update. This is our latest TD06SL2 based turbocharger, the SLSS-2 in 10cm turbine.

This particular one has the latest low friction trust setup, with slightly larger compressor inducer and slightly more aggressive compressor blade profile. It should be maxing out around 390rwkws mark working with a RB25det engine on E85.

It is made to produce more power, with better response and much better reliability to some of the T67 copies

Will update results shortly.

front.JPG

rear.JPG

.

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

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...