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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...