Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Congrat on the set up Marko.

It must be one nice fun beast to drive in.

Yes I think your tuner is right :bunny:

You will need the Indy blue 1600cc if you want to change over to E85.

I am going through the process for my 3.0L and T618Z turbo at the moment.

I had around 90% duty cycle with 700cc injectors at 24psi with a power fc D jetro.

With the E85 and 1000cc injectors, the duty cycle was 100% at 23-24psi!

This was with a faulty vipec adaptor board though. One of the transistor on the board kept the EFI relay on and I have injector buzz even when the power was switched off. The injectors were loosely installed on the fuel rail as well, so I don't know how much E85 juice was wasted with these faults.

Dirt is right, the 3.0L sucks a lot of juice :rolleyes:

I should have the car retune in the next 2 weeks with the 1600cc injectors. I can keep you inform if you like.

Dirt is right, the 3.0L sucks a lot of juice :bunny:

I should have the car retune in the next 2 weeks with the 1600cc injectors. I can keep you inform if you like.

yes well ive noticed it drinks a substantial amount of fuel, its not built for economy so i dont care

i'd be most interested to see your results - please keep me informed.

what hp is the t618z rated at?

i went for a drive last night, its actually much harder to push the car on the road as the power band is much wider than my other setup (i.e. starts spooling @ 3000rpm, rb26 started @ 5500rpm) so i find that im changing gears much sooner than my rev limit (i.e. 7000rpm). i need to get used to it.

i gave it a good squirt in 2nd gear & it broke out into a wild wheel spin :rolleyes:

for the 1st time ive rated my car as dangerous as my previous bike (suzuki gsxr1000 worked with 173.5rwhp)...now im waiting for a litre bike to pick on me :bunny:

I had around 90% duty cycle with 700cc injectors at 24psi with a power fc D jetro.

With the E85 and 1000cc injectors, the duty cycle was 100% at 23-24psi!

That's 58.7% more E85 (700 x 90% versus 1000 x 100%). Something is drastically wrong, there is no way any car I have ever seen with E85 uses 58.7% more fuel. I have seen 25% and the occasional 30% when more power(boost) and/or rpm is tuned for. But 58.7% in the same engine at the same boost and rpm is unbelieveable.

This was with a faulty vipec adaptor board though. One of the transistor on the board kept the EFI relay on and I have injector buzz even when the power was switched off. The injectors were loosely installed on the fuel rail as well, so I don't know how much E85 juice was wasted with these faults.

Based on the above I'd say about 30%.

Dirt is right, the 3.0L sucks a lot of juice :P

It depends on the comparison, my last 3 litre used less fuel for the same horsepower than the RB26 that it replaced. Mostly because I used a lot lower rpm, keeping in mind torque x rpm / 5250 = horsepower.

I should have the car retune in the next 2 weeks with the 1600cc injectors. I can keep you inform if you like.

Thanks that will be most helpfull

Cheers

Gary

i went for a drive last night, its actually much harder to push the car on the road as the power band is much wider than my other setup (i.e. starts spooling @ 3000rpm, rb26 started @ 5500rpm) so i find that im changing gears much sooner than my rev limit (i.e. 7000rpm). i need to get used to it.

i gave it a good squirt in 2nd gear & it broke out into a wild wheel spin :(

for the 1st time ive rated my car as dangerous as my previous bike (suzuki gsxr1000 worked with 173.5rwhp)...now im waiting for a litre bike to pick on me :D

A big torque GTR is nuts on the street...id roll on the throttle and it would break traction at 6000rpm...that was with a little more than 1/2 throttle. I was unusually quiet after my first real drive around my test track here in Newcastle. Ill admit it did scare me...very used to it now though and want more. :(

hey gary - the scale along the bottom is kph (0-200)

post-a235105-dyno.JPG

Have I got it right, max torque is around 4,250 rpm and max horsepower is around 6,100 rpm and it makes less than 50 rwkw at 3,000 rpm? Or is my maths totally screwed up?

Cheers

Gary

A big torque GTR is nuts on the street...id roll on the throttle and it would break traction at 6000rpm...that was with a little more than 1/2 throttle. I was unusually quiet after my first real drive around my test track here in Newcastle. Ill admit it did scare me...very used to it now though and want more. :cool:

chasing hp is a never ending story...i did the hill climb on the old rd coming back after the brooklyn bridge and my mate was following me, i applied the throttle in 3rd gear overtaking a fireblade exiting a corner and he told me i left 4 black lines, felt like a tiger hanging on with its paws

Have I got it right, max torque is around 4,250 rpm and max horsepower is around 6,100 rpm and it makes less than 50 rwkw at 3,000 rpm? Or is my maths totally screwed up?

Cheers

Gary

your calculations are not right, would be if it was a rgv250

Edited by Marko R1

Yes it would be nice to have rpm/speed on the X-axis.

Isnt' the rpm limit at 8500rpm on that dyno print out?

Marko, Trust doesn't really advertise any power for the T517z or T618z.

It's not nice for the price that they charge for these turbo.

However I always had good results with Trust turbo so I stayed with them.

The only results I've seen around for T618z are from Uras and this chart

post-a221725-powerfact1.JPG

Sydneykid, thanks for the calculation. I was thinking the same too. I've made a lot of changes since the tune mentioned, but I will retune the car at the same boost and rpm for comparision. I will keep you guys informed.

it's an awesome result mate, just one thing and this bugs me all the time. and that's people confusing the dynos measurement of tractive effort (expressed in N) as torque expressed in Nm. that is not 930 newton metres of torque and sadly you can't really compare it to manufacturers who quote for example 320kw and 600nm of torque. it's 9000N. it's a measurement of tractive effort, yes, but it's not the same and not directly comparable or easily converted to NM. it's one thing that always pisses me off that dyno's read 'torque' in this way.

it does look to me it's making about 75kw at 3,000 and 150kw at 4,000 but by 5,000 it's making 225rwkw and is well on it's way! 6000 is making 330rkw, 7000 = 375kw and then it's making 400+ from 8,000 onwards. it would be pretty hairy from about 5,500 when the torque is ramping up hard and hitting it's peak at 6,000 or so.

it's a lot of power in a road car and will keep you entertained for a while I reckon. Greg builds great engines and I've recommended him to a number of people over the years all of whom were very happy.

Is anyone else wondering what that curve would look like with equal lift but lower duration cam profiles?

what about smaller cams, turbo's ,capacity, same dyno, same tuner, same fuel and relatively standard home built engine using only pistons, rod bolts and cams from the aftermarket catalogue?

Edited by DiRTgarage
what about smaller cams, turbo's ,capacity, same dyno, same tuner, same fuel and relatively standard home built engine using only pistons and cams from the aftermarket catalogue?

No not your motor's dyno graph Paul, just cam duration change to Marko's one :cool:

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...