Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Going in for a tune in the next month or so after a dissapointing result last year.

Car is R33 gtst S2. My mod list includes;

RB25 Stock internals

HKS 2835 pro s

HKS FMIC

HKS pod

3 " turbo back exhaust

hi flo cat

Sard bov

Wolf V500 ecu (using as boost control)

With this setup I made 227rwkw. Expected at least 260rwkw. Boost is hitting 1.1 bar

The difference in the next tune is I will have Nismo 555cc injectors. However I am debating on whether I should get some cam gears to allow for finer advancement/retarding of timing? If so should I get both intake and exhaust? Or just one or the other

From reading the forums joeyjoeyjojo is making 270rwkw with a very similar (if not the same setup - except he uses exhaust cam gears). I do not want to return from the tuners this time with the same kw and waste more $$$.

Info appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/279168-getting-next-tune/
Share on other sites

ya know...im having the same/similar issue at the moment.

but im getting 250rwkw but supposidly have hit a wall with flow of intercooler so ive changed my intercooler.

who is doing your tuning by the way??

btw i think joeyjoejoe has it boosted to about 18 psi.

So what trouble shooting have you performed?

ie...

Do you know the exhaust/dump/cat isnt a restriction?

Sure the BOV isnt slightly leaking, piping etc?

Current cam timing is correct? (cam belt isnt a tooth out)

Tune is decent? Perhaps not enough fuel?

just because you aren't making "x" power doesn't neccesarily mean much.

Remember you have VCT on the intake... I ran a stock head, cams etc to well over 300rwkw. I bet there is something else wrong

r31nismoid,

I know there is no restriction with exhaust/dump/cat. This has been checked on a couple of ocassions now.

Cant confirm 100% but I am pretty sure the bov is not leaking

Cam timing is something I cannot confirm and this is the reason why I am considering cam gears as at least while the cover is off we can see if there is a tooth out or cam gears are worn.

For the tune I need to trust the tuner and I didn't have 100% confidence in my last tuner, hence the reason for going somewhere else. The only feedback I got was that the car began to ping when putting more timing into the tune, hence no more than 227rwkw could be reached without risk of detonation. They told me it was either a timing issue (cams) or bad fuel.

Based on this I guess cam gears may be a worthwhile investment?

alltheway, my tuner is in WA. I am using a different tuner this time round

saying that 227rwkws from a RB25DET running only 1.1Bar is quite decent, remember also different dynos read different values.

Would be good if you posted up your dyno results too!

A/F vs RPM, Boost vs RPM, Power vs RPM

Im assuming the injectors were limiting the power, why it is running 1.1 bar to max out the injectors is the real question.

You need to remember that setting up the cam gears is a bit of a time consuming process in an rb, as the cas need to be removed every time you want to adjust, so it will cost you a bit in dyno time.

Im assuming the injectors were limiting the power, why it is running 1.1 bar to max out the injectors is the real question.

You need to remember that setting up the cam gears is a bit of a time consuming process in an rb, as the cas need to be removed every time you want to adjust, so it will cost you a bit in dyno time.

Apparently the stock injectors were in the mid 80% for duty cycle. The tuner said this was not the problem. He kept stating that the car began to ping when putting more timing into the tune indicating bad fuel (I was running BP 98) or bad compression?

I did not get much in the way of feedback hence the reason I am not going back. I have had others point out that I should do a fuel injector upgrade which is what I am doing now, however tuner does not think this was the issue. I am just thinking if the timing was an issue then maybe cam gears, a new belt and resetting the timing may fix?

However I dont really know what prob I am trying to fix! Thats the frustrating part!! Just looking for more power from the 2835.

johnnilicte, I do not have a dyno graph with AFR's.

Any other comments/suggestions?

i reckon replace new coil packs?

R31Nismoid, I sense KB warrior that doesn't know anythibg :P

If his coil packs are/were fcked you will see ripples in the dyno graph.

1.1 bar and making that power figure is completely normal, I'm running 1.3 on a tiny turbo and only make 223rwkWs, but saying that on a different dyno clocked up 247rwkWs

i reckon replace new coil packs?

Already done - I have split fires

Dunnno how that would be related. If ignition was not occurring correctly I would see inconsistency in boost/power levels. The car holds boost and power fine, just wont go above 227rwkw with current mods/tune

R31Nismoid, I sense KB warrior that doesn't know anythibg :P

If his coil packs are/were fcked you will see ripples in the dyno graph.

1.1 bar and making that power figure is completely normal, I'm running 1.3 on a tiny turbo and only make 223rwkWs, but saying that on a different dyno clocked up 247rwkWs

johnnilicte, Interestingly I was getting 229rwkw with a HKS 2530 from 11 psi! I had the same mods excluding the wolf (I had piggy back ecu)

Now I have a 2835 and wolf ecu and lost 2rwkw!

around 4750rpm is where your curve starts to fall

it's definately some kind of flow limitation

always start with the cheapest and easiest possible solutions:

if you've got a 2835, surely you'd have the full 3" exhaust from the turbo back, high flow or no cat, straight as possible.

check your fuel pump and ensure that it's grounded properly and is getting the correct voltage.

check your sensors etc.

does the Wolf V500 an AFM type ecu?

limits of the stock rb25 afm are around around 230rwkw, alot of people upgrade to a z32 using a power fc at this stage.

1.1 bar should be enough boost, once you've got your 550cc injectors in, get an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and up the fuel pressure a bit.

Edit: oh yea, also what type of "aftermarket fuel pump do you have?"

bosch 044s are much much better than their 040 brothers.

Edited by EliSun

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...