Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I couldnt seem to find anything on this but i am known to be hopeless with the search

After reading a massive thread on a ls1 going into an r32 i got onto thinking for myself. I used to own a vt s/c and loved the motor.

When installing the ls1 there is a clearance issue on the steering rack just wondering if anyone would know if this would be removed with the super 6 engine?

And what people's views on it are

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/273148-holden-v6-supercharged-into-r32/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i think the big issue here is that the cost of manufacturing things up to fit is going to make it more expensive than just dropping a rb25 in which will give it more power (10kw more just in stock form and it's much easier to get power out of the rb25 without the engine packing it in than the betsy motor). also the suprcharged motors are only available in auto so if you want a manual you will have to go new flywheel, etc.

now i'm not saying it's a stupid idea as i think doing things differently is great, but in this case i think that the time and effort isn't going to achieve any gains, or even be as anywhere near as good as the commonly used ideas. the rb25 or a twin cam rb30 is going to give more power for the money as well as take abuse much more. the supercharged commodore motors (and the non supercharged motors as well) don't handle power upgrades that well without adding in a lot of extra bolt ons, unlike a rb25 that will gain 60 or 70hp just by going exhaust, fmic and winding the boost up and won't really shorten its life at all.

the advantage with going to a ls1 is that the engine is lighter than the stock motor due to it being all alloy, and it sits nice and far back in the engine bay giving good weight distribution and makes much more power than the rb25.

go the LS1, better a/m support, just as involved and honestly better than any rb combination for torque.... especially if you charge it down the road.

Image this charged LS2 in your R32......

post-34927-1244093810_thumb.jpg

Edited by URAS

the VT V6 with a supercharger is a complete waste of time into your 32. they are rubbish. go the LS for sure if you are going to that effort. you may have thought it a great motor at the time but I'm guessing you don't have a lot to compare it to as they are pants. I'm sure people in east berlin thought their worked wartburg 353 went hard until they drove a reliant robin too... :banana:

the VT V6 with a supercharger is a complete waste of time into your 32. they are rubbish. go the LS for sure if you are going to that effort. you may have thought it a great motor at the time but I'm guessing you don't have a lot to compare it to as they are pants. I'm sure people in east berlin thought their worked wartburg 353 went hard until they drove a reliant robin too... :banana:

Ha ha so true.

The buick V6 is one of the worst engines ever made its with the likes of the rover V8(however its heavy and can be used as a boat anchor).

If you would even bother i'd choose a dirty big v8 with injection systems and twin turbos, doubt it would fit but it would fry tyres better than a frypan.

this is a killer car, let down early on by china turbo's (kkr) i think it now runs something martin imports. If this car ever came up at the right price i would jump on it asap.

post-34927-1244195207_thumb.jpg

post-34927-1244195238_thumb.jpg

I have been passenger in an infiniti with a supercharged vq45 and that was a sweet set up. However the ls engines would have better aftermarket support in oz, no question. I just have a thing for the jap v8's. I think they handle extra load better.

I have been passenger in an infiniti with a supercharged vq45 and that was a sweet set up. However the ls engines would have better aftermarket support in oz, no question. I just have a thing for the jap v8's. I think they handle extra load better.

yeah i just got given a 1UZFE.... debating whether or not to swap the 26 out of the laurel or not.

IMO its either rb30det or the ls1/ls2. Owning a mild ls1 they are quite a good motor. They rev hard and have buckets of torque with pretty damn good economy.

The old buik v6's make my ears bleed, they are horrid sounding things not to mention they don't really get up and go unless they have a decent turbo or two shoved on to them.

Edited by SLAPS

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...