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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...