Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Its not a daily driven car.

It uses an R34 Bottom end apparently not sure exactly the difference between the two.

The head has had a little bit of work done to it. It has a Tomi exhaust cam, ecu etc.

Check out their www page it might have more info on there.

But at the end of the day.. WHO REALLY KNOWS!! :D

Mind you when the drive it on the drift days etc.. they do not run that 400rwkw+ through it as it. They run around the mid 300's.

The 446 was purely to win the dyno comp AFAIK, I was only using it as an example as if they made that sort of power on a dyno (not daily driver) it sort of says that a pull of just over 400hp shouldnt be a problem. Also (heresay) but I have been told numerous stories of guys running in excess of 300rwkw with stock rb25 bottom ends - reliably, mainly from Japan (I know, different fuel, etc)

And as Joel says, they were running mid 300 on the drift day, and as you saw Paul, it went around the track on the rev limiter (several times) and still managed to drive off under its own steam.

Just using example of bottom end strength to put GTSt's mind at ease:D :D

Hi Joel, our experience with RB25's has been 450 bhp, no more than 1.7 bar boost and very seldom over 7,500 rpm is pretty damn reliable on the standard internals. It really depends a lot on how good the tune is, how well controlled the temperatures are (oil, water and air) and what sort of condition the engine is in in the first place.

That's on pump premium unleaded. if you use a highly oxegenated fuel (Elf Turbomax or LMS for example) then an extra 100 bhp doesn't seem to cause any distress.

Hope that helps

I checked the JMS webiste, it states that 300rwkws odd is achieved using a Trust TD06-25G. For the life of me even allowing for racing fuels and more boost can i see that turbo making that power.

So just curious what turbo setup was capable of such power on an RB25 (a relatively stock one at that...the dyno chart looks a little different.)

Sydneykid, The MAP sensor on the wolf is in-built, so all you have to do is run a vaccum line from the plenum to the ECU, even people like me can do that. It is entirely plug'n'play, in the fact that it will work with the standard AFM (or aftermarket) but it does have the bebefit of being able to run MAP if you prefer. It comes with a 2bar map sensor, which can be upgraded to a 3bar MAP sensor if the need arises.

Yeh Buster i am familiar with your car and have no problem accepting that the TD06-25G is good for 300-330rwkws.

Sorry...

I checked the JMS webiste, it states that 300rwkws odd is achieved using a Trust TD06-25G. For the life of me even allowing for racing fuels and more boost can i see that turbo making that sort of power.

Should have read ... I checked the JMS webiste, it states that 300rwkws odd is achieved using a Trust TD06-25G. For the life of me even allowing for racing fuels and more boost can i see that turbo making the 446rwkws.

Thats what my previous post should have read... so i was not doubting the ability of a TD06-25G to make over 300rwkws, but 446rwkws. So just curious to know what turbo on an RB25 can make that sort of power?

Looking at the pic of the R33 on the dyno the turbo is definitly not a T88/T78, and a T67 is very similar to a TD06-25G...so doubt they would have changed it for one.

It doesnt look like a HKS3040 either or big Garret or Apexi turbo? So am i right in assuming the thing was still using a TD06-25G for the dyno run?

stop bickering about what does and doesnt make a good representation of power. If u do a mod to u r happy with the increase in power. then thats all there is to it. and if u want to crunch numbers all day long talk about something worth while. like GTR700 (Australia's fastest GTR!!!) At stage 1 (stock bottom end) it was pushing out about 450kW at all 4 wheels. when the engine got pulled apart for more work there was nothing wrong with it. the RB bottom end can take a huge amount of power without complaints.

If u want an accurate comparison of 2 cars put them on the same dyno one after the other. it aint gonna get much more accurate than that.

Hi GTS-t VSPEC, you posted "run a vacuum line from the plenum to the ECU". Since Steve-SST has declined to reply, can you let me know if you have experienced any delay in response with that length of vacuum hose? I have never been able to test it back to back and I am wondering if anyone else has.

I have tested 2 boost gauges side by side, one with a long vacuum hose and the other with almost none, and there is a noticeable difference in the transient readings. ie; the one with the short hose shows boost before the one with the longer hose. The absolute value is the same, it just takes more time for the air to pressurise the longer hose. This is particularly noticeable on rapid upchanges through the gearbox, say when doing a 1/4 run.

This is one of advantages quoted by Trust for their electronic boost gauges due to no hoses, that being, quicker response to changes. So I am not the only one who has seen this.

This does not show up during a dyno power run when testing a MAP sensor with long hoses as the dyno ramp rate is slow enough to enable the MAP sensor to keep up with boost rise. Plus you don't change gear on the dyno. So it would only show up when driving on the road or track with F&W lambda sensor and display connected. Since we run fuel enrichment under boost, if the MAP sensor is slow in responding you could have (in theory) boost without sufficient fuel until the MAP sensor caught up. I haven't tested it and I was wondering whether anyone else had.

Moving on, I keep seeing quotes saying that two of the big advantages of a Wolf is that you don't have to run AFM's and it is P&P. In my opinion the advantages are mutually exclusive ie; if you run AFM's then it is plug and play, but if you don't want to run AFM's then it is not P&P.

Hope that adds to the post

I think if you are not capable of installing the Wolf yourself then you shouldnt be intalling either the Wolf or the Power Fc in your car.

I still had the AFM installed on my old RB20 despite running a Microtech ECU, as its absence may have aroused ppls suspicions.

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...