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

    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
    • I know I have to get a wheel alignment but until then I just need to bring the rear tyres in a bit they're wearing to the belt on the inside and brand new on the outside edge. I did shorten the arms a bit but got it wrong now after a few klms the Slip and VDC lights come on. I'd just like to get it to a point where I can drive for another week or two before getting an alignment. I've had to pay a lot of other stuff recently so doing it myself is my only option 
    • You just need a wheel alignment after, so just set them to the same as current and drive to the shop. As there are 2 upper links it may also be worth adding adjustable upper front links at the same time; these reduce bump steer when you move the camber (note that setting those correctly takes a lot longer as you have to recheck the camber at each length of the toe arm, through a range of movement, so you could just ignore that unless the handling becomes unpredictable)
×
×
  • Create New...