Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Thanks

Is the ATR43ss2 a lot bigger or ok for what I'm looking at? Don't mind going external gate, prob off exhaust housing.

This is for a track car.

go SS2 with the external hanging off the turbo.. I get full noise around 4100rpm in 3rd and it's on E85.. it is a touch bigger.. I would say 3076R size, but a touch more responsive.

hasn't seen a dyno yet, but Virtual Dyno tells me my shit box is making 317kW lol... however other cars have made over 350kW on stock cams with the same turbo.

I bash mine around the track quite often but takes getting used to.. the massive surge of power usually gets the car sideways (even with a 2 way).

Firstly sorry for being lazy. But what is the best direct bolt in turbo for an R33 gts on E85 shooting for around 400rwhp with as much response as poss. Or is it worth going external gate and or big dump?

Standard high flow will do that fine.

I'll be tuning the internally gated one on BP98 with a Dynapack hub dyno, probably not as tough an audience as you guys are overall used to - though similar to some. Will probably go for around 18psi, but will see how knock limited it is and decide whether to go higher from there.

Attatched is my completely standard unopened 25 with internal gate SS2 on stock manifold and plenum, 1000cc injectors, Gtr intercooler, 3" exhaust, NISTune and 98PULP tuned on a hub dyno 21psi bleeding to 18.

post-84937-14109456479535_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2

go SS2 with the external hanging off the turbo.. I get full noise around 4100rpm in 3rd and it's on E85.. it is a touch bigger.. I would say 3076R size, but a touch more responsive.

hasn't seen a dyno yet, but Virtual Dyno tells me my shit box is making 317kW lol... however other cars have made over 350kW on stock cams with the same turbo.

I bash mine around the track quite often but takes getting used to.. the massive surge of power usually gets the car sideways (even with a 2 way).

Whats full boost? 4100rpm in 3rd sounds less responsive than a GT3076R if anything

Yeah that is definitely laggier than a GT3076R - not bad for the price, that they seem to make similar power and the fact that they are a journal bearing turbo... goes well when you add up the costs of buying and installing one :) I look forward to experiencing it in person though and seeing what they're all about!

Yep, I'm probably the last person you need to tell that to :) I never ran 20psi deliberately so admittedly I can't quote exactly what I ran there but used to hit ~1.1bar around 3700rpm in 3rd quite happily so I doubt it is any worse.

4th was a different kettle of fish altogether (would hit 17psi before 3500rpm):

Moby2bar.jpg

:whistling:

Anyway - I (obviously) think the SS2 are a good thing, hopefully will have a better idea of how good soon... but I definitely like to keep it real, as well. Considering the price and convenience difference I think they deliver very very close to one of the most popular Garrett options.

yo Lithium, if you want I can do some logs tonight and send them to you :)

Also I do have my gain set conservatively on the EBC - I find on the track it does like to spike a little thus my boost might seem a touch laggier.

I know I can get 1bar around 3500~3700rpm - just can't remember exact numbers...another thing to factor in E85 will make turbos a little lazier as the EGTs are lower but highly doubt it's noticeable lol

  • Like 1

First I've heard of lazier boost response on e85 due to lower egt. ....

another reason why some tuners prefer running lower timing as the car comes on noise to increase EGTs to get the turbo moving

The cooler exhaust temp is obvious. The xtra exhaust volume due to burning more fuel still resulting in a slower spool is surprising.

Stao's examole was 100 rpm later.

So do you guys use soft timing zones to try and induce better spool?

For 98RON I tend to make timing lazy to get it to spool harder, but with E85 I just smash in as much timing as possible to produce the most torque as possible for that RPM.

More torque = more exhaust flow, however all my experimentation is usually graphed in Virtual Dyno or "feel".. will be hiring a dyno soon to finish off my tune.

Here's my current timing map, quite a bit of timing through the motor - but she loves it.

post-22311-0-98677800-1411012453_thumb.png

The cooler exhaust temp is obvious. The xtra exhaust volume due to burning more fuel still resulting in a slower spool is surprising.

Stao's examole was 100 rpm later.

It's not that you're burning more fuel. The amount of moles of exhaust gas is more closely related to the amount of air that the engine breathes. Granted, ethanol produces more H2O and less CO2 compared to petrol, and so there is definitely an increase in total number of molecules. Total mass of exhaust is also higher because of the extra mass of fuel involved. But there is definitely lower temperature, which not only impacts (downward) the actual volume flow rate of gas, but at the same time the total enthalpy of the gas and the velocity of the gas.

I haven't done the maths, and I'm not going to unless we turn this into a proper argument, but you could easily enough calculate the change in moles between the fuels, and given an assumption of a typical 98 and E85 exhaust temp for an otherwise the same engine load (say what? 75C?) you could calculate the actial volume difference, velocity difference, and with a bit more work the enthalpy difference. I think that most of us (inlcuding me) would be hard pressed to say how much of an effect the latter 2 of that list would actually change spool, and not very many more would be able to estimate the spool difference for the first 2 either. But you could look at the % changes and decide if you think it would cause the effect on spool to be +ve or -ve.

  • Like 1

It's not that you're burning more fuel. The amount of moles of exhaust gas is more closely related to the amount of air that the engine breathes. Granted, ethanol produces more H2O and less CO2 compared to petrol, and so there is definitely an increase in total number of molecules. Total mass of exhaust is also higher because of the extra mass of fuel involved. But there is definitely lower temperature, which not only impacts (downward) the actual volume flow rate of gas, but at the same time the total enthalpy of the gas and the velocity of the gas.

I haven't done the maths, and I'm not going to unless we turn this into a proper argument, but you could easily enough calculate the change in moles between the fuels, and given an assumption of a typical 98 and E85 exhaust temp for an otherwise the same engine load (say what? 75C?) you could calculate the actial volume difference, velocity difference, and with a bit more work the enthalpy difference. I think that most of us (inlcuding me) would be hard pressed to say how much of an effect the latter 2 of that list would actually change spool, and not very many more would be able to estimate the spool difference for the first 2 either. But you could look at the % changes and decide if you think it would cause the effect on spool to be +ve or -ve.

Proper argument, proper argument !!!!! :D

I would be interested to see the math on this, and there is extra %s for showing the workings :D

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

    • Well, after the full circus this week (new gearbag, 14 psi actuator on, injectors and AFM upgraded, and.....turbo repair) the diagnosis on the wastegate is in. It was broken. It was broken in a really strange way. The weld that holds the lever arm onto the wastegate flapper shaft broke. Broke completely, but broke in such a way that it could go back together in the "correct" position, or it could rearrange itself somewhere else along the fracture plane and sit with the flapper not parallel to the lever. So, who knows how and when exactly what happened? No-one will ever know. Was it broken like this the first time it spat the circlip and wedged itself deep into the dump? Or was it only broken when I tried to pry it back into place? (I didn't try that hard, but who knows?). Or did it break first? Or did it break between the first and second event of wierdness? Meh. It doesn't matter now. It is welded back together. And it is now held closed by a 14 psi actuator, so...the car has been tuned with the supporting mods (and the order of operations there is that the supporting mods and dyno needed to be able to be done first before adding boost, because it was pinging on <<14 psi with the new turbo with only a 6 psi actuator). And then tuned up a bit, and with the boost controller turned off throughout that process. So it was only running WG pressure and so only hit about 15-16 psi. The turbo is still ever so slightly lazier than might be preferred - like it is still a bit on the big side for the engine. I haven't tested it on the road properly in any way - just driven it around in traffic for a half hour or so. But it is like chalk and cheese compared to what it was. Between dyno numbers and driving feedback: It makes 100 kW at 3k rpm, which is OK, could be better. That's stock 2JZ territory, or RB20 with G series 550. It actually starts building boost from 2k, which is certainly better than it did recently (with all the WG flapper bullshit). Although it's hard to remember what it was like prior to all that - it certainly seems much, much better. And that makes sense, given the WG was probably starting to blow open at anything above about 3 psi anyway (with the 6 psi actuator). It doesn't really get to "full boost" (say 16 psi) until >>4k rpm. I am hopeful that this is a feature of the lack of boost controller keeping boost pressure off the actuator, because it was turned off for the dyno and off for the drives afterward. There's more to be found here, I'm sure. It made 230 rwkW at not a lot more than 6k and held it to over 7k, so there seems to be plenty of potential to get it up to 250-260rwkW with 18 psi or so, which would be a decent effort, considering the stock sized turbo inlet pipework and AFM, and the return flow cooler. According to Tao, those things should definitely put a bit of a limit on it by that sort of number. I must stress that I have not opened the throttle 100% on the road yet - well, at least not 100% and allowed it to wind all the way up. It'll have to wait until some reasonable opportunity. I'm quite looking forward to that - it feels massively better than it has in a loooong time. It's back to its old self, plus about 20% extra powers over the best it ever did before. I'm going to get the boost controller set up to maximise spool and settle at no more than ~17 psi (for now) and then go back on the dyno to see what we can squeeze out of it. There is other interesting news too. I put together a replacement tube to fit the R35 AFM in the stock location. This is the first time the tuner has worked with one, because anyone else he has tuned for has gone from Z32 territory to aftermarket ECU. No-one has ever wanted to stay Nistuned and do what I've done. Anyway, his feedback is that the R35 AFM is super super super responsive. Tiny little changes in throttle position or load turn up immediately as a cell change on the maps. Way, way more responsive than any of the old skool AFMs. Makes it quite diffifult to tune as you have to stay right on top of that so you don't wander off the cell you wanted to tune. But it certainly seems to help with real world throttle response. That's hard to separate from all the other things that changed, but the "pedal feel" is certainly crisp.
    • I'm a bit confused by this post, so I'll address the bit I understand lol.  Use an air compressor and blow away the guide coat sanding residue. All the better if you have a moisture trap for your compressor. You'd want to do this a few times as you sand the area, you wouldn't for example sand the entire area till you think its perfect and then 'confirm' that is it by blowing away the guide coat residue.  Sand the area, blow away the guide coat residue, inspect the panel, back to sanding... rinse and repeat. 
    • The detail level is about right for the money they charge for the full kit... AU$21.00 each issue, 110 issues for a total of $2,300 (I mentioned $2.2K in the first post when the exchange rate was better). $20/week is doable... 😐
    • If planning on joining us for the day(s) please indicate by filling in this form. https://forms.gle/Ma8Nn4DzYVA8uDHg7
    • You put the driver's seat on the wrong side! Incredible detail on all of this. It looks like you could learn a lot about the car just from assembling the kit.
×
×
  • Create New...