Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Got a bit bored tonight and thought i'd get all the dyno graphs out and compare them. After looking at them all it was a bit difficult to actually see what kind of power increases there have been over the last three years as you obviously just get used to the power every time. I decided i would chuck all the values into excel and chuck them all on the same graph and was fairly suprised by it all.

Here's the graph for a bit of a reference in case people are going down similar routes and want to compare what kind of power differences there will be (Obviously each dyno and car is different but at least it gives you a rough idea).

post-35676-1242381888_thumb.jpg

Stock turbo

Stock Turbo @ 10psi

Full 3" Exhaust

Pod Filter

HKS GTRS Stock ECU

GTRS @ 14psi (started breaking down spark at 190kw, hence the stop in power)

FMIC

Plazmaman plenum

GTRS Microtech

GTRS @ 17psi

LT12S Microtech

Splitfire Coilpacks

Injectors

Fuel Pump

GTRS + Headwork

GTRS @ 20psi

Cams

Springs

Ported Polished Head

I'm going to fiddle with it a bit more and try to get it to make a nice figure of 270kw :)

Edited by PM-R33
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/270208-dyno-graph-comparisons/
Share on other sites

Thats some nice gains there with the cams and head work Phil. I was wondering when i'd see a post from you.... saw the car out front of tms a few days back. .!

How does it feel on the road now ?

I just got mine all back together tonight..... man what a fun job pulling the head is. Be a week or so before i get on the dyno.

Gary

Edited by Fastrotor
the results are bogus

Why so?

His plots overall look fairly typical for the type of development work undertaken. He explained some sort of problem and why the run was aborted, so still worth including for a general comparison. I'd say that the problem might be more likely rooted in a tock ECU going into the good old failsafe R&R.

Demonstration of the lift in area under the curve aka power density aka average power might help people what to expect with their mods too. I'd rather look at torque plots though. :D

the results are bogus, why would you even bother plotting at 190rwkw GTRS

sure good work, but i would even bother with the whacko figures

Hmm not sure what you are getting at. The dyno run that goes to 190rwkw was two years ago with the stock ecu and stock coilpacks. We were going to tune a SAFC before and after however up top it kept breaking down in spark. The reason i only plotted it to 190rwkw is afterwards it just jolted around the place, don't really see the point in plotting a bunch of random up and down spikes. Hope that kind of answers what you ment?

Edited by PM-R33
top stuff you must be happy with the result.

did you go o/s on the valves in the head.

Nah they are just standard size Nissan valves. I was thinking of going the 1mm oversize on the exhaust side, but couldn't justify the money at the time and wasn't sure what kind of gains it would have.

no what im saying, is, the figure for the GTRS is pointless

no one in the right mind would expect a GTRS to cap at 190rwkw - regardless of mods

and doing it with stock ecu is silly

it just adds confusion and misleading information - it would be the same as including thizzles 300rwkw GTRS

its not correct, its way outside the norm and its not the typical result a person would achieve

the point of a comparison chart, like yours (which is a good idea) is to compare typical results one would achieve

if you throw in a 190rwkw GTRS graph people may be get confused etc and we all know GTRS is average 250rwkw

Oh ok fair enough. I just put the graph up there since that was a graph i had lying around and it gives a rough idea of what the GTRS runs like on a stock ECU up to the point where mine stopped making power due to the coilpacks. Obviously if i had some good coilpacks on that run it looks like it would have gone to low 200's before the ECU started holding it back.

I agree with Paul but for a different reason.

the graph is bogus for the fact that the head work line is running 20 psi and the non head work line is running 17 psi.

changing from 17 up to 20 will get the gtrs up into its optimum flow range for the turbo and it will also ramp harder onto boost and therfor make more midrange and top end power.

however the top end power is fairly similar between before and after considering the extra 3 psi, so i would be a little dissapointed in the dolllars spent.

why did you pull the head off?

what went wrong?

I'm not going to keep arguing with you dude.

I made the graph for me of my car's dyno runs and how it reacted each time. Thats what it made on the dyno on the stock ECU with no tuning. The 190rwkw was at about 5000rpm or so judging by the graph. That's pretty much what it would make on some one elses car aswell running the turbo on a stock ECU. So it was relavent to me and maybe it will be relevant to other people thinking a similar setup will get good results, which clearly it didn't until it got the aftermarket ECU put into it.

Can you please just get over such a small thing, this wasn't the point of the thread.

I agree with Paul but for a different reason.

the graph is bogus for the fact that the head work line is running 20 psi and the non head work line is running 17 psi.

changing from 17 up to 20 will get the gtrs up into its optimum flow range for the turbo and it will also ramp harder onto boost and therfor make more midrange and top end power.

however the top end power is fairly similar between before and after considering the extra 3 psi, so i would be a little dissapointed in the dolllars spent.

why did you pull the head off?

what went wrong?

Head got pulled off because i did the valve springs after putting the cams in.

Your incorrect of your assumptions about my car. We ran the car on 20psi last time and it didn't get much better results hence we ran it on 17psi. A car that is ramping up on boost is not going to make more power down low because its peak boost has changed from 17psi to 20psi. The wastegate is shut below 3500 odd rpm, so the power increase down low is clearly not due to running more peak boost. Surely you know this and no i'm not dissapointed, it has a lot better over all power on the street, exactly what i wanted.

Can we PLEASE not turn this into a shit fight like every other thread turns into. I did the graph for my amusement, thought ppl might think its interesting. It's not an Engineering report into the air flow characterstics of a GTRS, it was my dyno graphs put onto one graph, that is all. Take from it what you want.

Edited by PM-R33

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

    • The cross sectional area of a circular hole scales with the square of diameter. So a 2mm diameter hole is 4x the area of a 1mm hole. Not double. The 1.7mm hole is nearly 3x the area of a 1mm hole. You do not need restrictors at both ends of the oil supply line. If you have new, additional restrictors at the turbo end, that you did not have before, then you do not need a restrictor at the inlet end.
    • Hi all. Been a while but things are moving along. I just have something that I am wondering about. Since I will use OEM turbo oil pumbing, I got myself a new bolt, the one that goes into the engine block oil feed. As I recall (and see visually) this bolt comes restricted with I think a 1.7mm hole? Not quite sure but it was something around that size. The turbos have 1mm restrictor bolts installed, as necessary due to ball bearings and my higher oil pressures. Can I now just use that OEM bolt with the 1.7mm hole in for the engine block or will this actually be too much oil flow restriction and I have to drill it out first? In my head it would make sense for the bolt to be at least 2mm wide as both turbos take "1mm of oil flow". Do let me know if my logic is flawed here, I just want to make sure I don't kill my turbo bearings with too little oil. Don't know if I can trust the saying I read somewhere that ball bearing turbos essentially only need an oil mist
    • There are several aftermarket options available, from not-too-painful moneyhttps://justjap.com/collections/driveshafts-bearings/products/d-max-reinforced-replacement-rear-driveshaft-set-fits-nissan-s13-s14-s15-r32-r33-r34-c35 and  https://justjap.com/products/crank-motorsport-billet-rear-axles-fits-nissan-skyline-r33-gts-t-r34-gt-t?srsltid=AfmBOorQk4xkGUa98kO7v2ePLUiNt-HRrM2AwWNw9mbSIVE1ujBVwY__, all the way up to The Driveshaft Shop https://driveshaftshop.com/skyline-cv-axles/
    • Yeah based on old XRC5964S specs, it looks to be roughly GTX3576R sized? But this 5964S compressor will flow 90lb airflow somewhat similar to the compressors in both the GTX3584RS or G35-1050.. I fully expected the 0.64 rear A/R to choke up top - seems way too small from typical convention - but these are seemingly beneficial over the prior 0.82 results.. Be interesting to see if he comments on the EFR question in that thread - he mentioned in a prior video that BW EFR's were the "cats pajamas 10 years ago", but by the sounds of things all his kits have been using Xona for quite a while now.
    • Yeah it’s still got the oem manual gearbox and clutch, only kinda mods are a blow off valve, coil overs, and a aftermarket intercooler. Also had it for about 2 months now with a lovely midnight purple paint on it.
×
×
  • Create New...