Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 477
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

rob at rips is running an rb26/30 with factory block and crank making over 1350hp in his 7sec car, he is actually trying to break it but he said it just wont, this engine was built about 3yrs ago :laugh: if its good for rips its good for me

paul is right, its a street driven car

a 26 block is better then a rb30 talking about the block here not the crank size but you guys will be seeing alot more rd28 set ups with 3.4 cranks soon enough

What a great idea an RD28 block would be....an extra 40kg over the front axle on the already front heavy GTR, plus the 5 grands worth of block prep needed to make it fit.

As Marko said its a street car and theres nothing wrong with the dirty 30.

We need vids Marko!

What a great idea an RD28 block would be....an extra 40kg over the front axle on the already front heavy GTR, plus the 5 grands worth of block prep needed to make it fit.

As Marko said its a street car and theres nothing wrong with the dirty 30.

We need vids Marko!

lol - i couldnt agree anymore!

re. the vids...it wont be long, i have a new sony handycam hd which i need to put to the test, it has a youtube upload function :angry:

i replotted my 3rd and 4th gear over each other last night and it looks nothing like that...one line is just under the other...ill scan it for you if you like.

scan0003q.jpg

clearly both these runs were conducted in the same gear... the dyno operator has just made a mistake and not entered the right gear into the program

you would be ignorant to think otherwise ;)

clearly both these runs were conducted in the same gear... the dyno operator has just made a mistake and not entered the right gear into the program

you would be ignorant to think otherwise :thumbsup:

Mmmmmmmm, not sure about that mate, we've done back to back dyno runs in 4th and 5th gear and got almost identicle power curves, within 3-5whp or so.

Rob

Mmmmmmmm, not sure about that mate, we've done back to back dyno runs in 4th and 5th gear and got almost identicle power curves, within 3-5whp or so.

Rob

Remember that we are assuming the power loss (drive train and traction) between the gears are constant with these discussion. Obviously if they read the same at every single vehicle speed, it just means that you lost power in one of the run.

That is completely different to comparing response between a 3rd gear power run with another 4th gear power run.

Or in some case, I've seen people compare 2 different cars.

Why did I get drag into dyno comparison talk in the first place. Dyno is just a tuning tool :whistling:

Edited by 9krpm

the curves will be the same basic shape but when speed is the bottom axis there is no way one of those runs could be in 3rd and one in 4th.... doing the run in different gears moves the curve along the graph. so the lower the gear of course it will make more power at a given km/h. peak power should be the same, but not at the same speed in every gear. otherwise you'd have a gearbox full of the same gears!

the curves will be the same basic shape but when speed is the bottom axis there is no way one of those runs could be in 3rd and one in 4th.... doing the run in different gears moves the curve along the graph. so the lower the gear of course it will make more power at a given km/h. peak power should be the same, but not at the same speed in every gear. otherwise you'd have a gearbox full of the same gears!

BINGO :):);)

glad someone else has a brain !!!

Edited by Cerbera
Apoligies for giving an example with someones name in it...that was maybe a little too much. (mods please edit name out)

Calling my engine a drag engine is like me calling yours one.

Show me an aussie built RB 30 thats so much more outstanding than what ive got. Im building one to see what all the fuss is about and see if it will actually make what ive already got better. I think the big turbo may enjoy a bit more air...so we will see what just changing the bottom end will achieve.

You were off the mark refering to my engine as a drag engine 9K...that was the point...you have no idea what went into it and how it was put together. The focus when building was to make the engine make as much low down grunt (torque) as possible with the GT-RS turbo's. The reason for this is im making zero boost at the startline as i was using a normal Power FC with no anti-lag, two step etc. When the clutch was popped the car had to be right in the meat of its torque curve pulling the car hard off the line. This resulted in the awesome 60' times which was the real secret in getting a car with limited power into the 9's...it was 60'ing faster than Kier's car with less power and more weight (1470kg) and it didn't need an OS Giken 3L to do this. Only Mark Jacobsen has 60'd a GTR on radials faster than what our car has. A high revving RB26 that has a big flat 5000rpm torque curve is what most circuit guys would kill to have.

Thanks

Paul,

What 60' Times were you getting to get into the 9s with that set-up?

I have a quick question about the Garrett turbo range.

Someone said that the GT-RS (GT2871R 52T i.e. -10's) turbos are still too laggy on the a 3 litre. What i was wondering is if anyone has used the smaller of the GT2871R turbos (the 48 trim) on either a 26 or 30.

They are placed in the middle of the GT28RS (-5) and the GT2871R 52T (-10) yet i have not seen anyone using them, it seems when people want a bigger turbo than a -5 they go straight to the -10, when the 48T is also an option.

This is the turbo i'm talking about, obviously it will need a custom compressor housing.

http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarre...1R_743347_1.htm

Edited by D_Stirls

come to think of it - mark berrys hi octane r32gtr with rb26 was running gcg modified garrett -5s which cracked over 400awkw as shown on the ignition dvd:

5ugygn.jpg

im not sure if he is running the same turbine setup on his new rb30 r34gtr:

o0dmjd.jpg

...maybe somebody like beerbaron would know this as i think he is well versed in the circuit racing scene

Edited by Marko R1

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...