Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm gathering information for my next series of upgrades.

I have a 95 R33 GTS-t. My list of mods includes

HKS pod filter

3 inch exhaust from turbo

Power FC

AVC-R

and a FMIC. = 192rwkw.

I would like to upgrade the turbo with the aim of approx 250rwkw.

My questions are about the support systems.

How much power will the standard clutch handle?

I plan on a new pump and injectors. I was thinking bosch 044 and sard 550's

Does anyone else have any suggetions. Has anyone used these injectors?

Value for money?

Do I need to get anything else apart from the injector and collar?

I dont plan on going internal in the engine at this stage but if I do I cant see me going over 300rwkw, would these injectors be ok.

The fuel system so far is the one thing that is causing me the most confusion so any help would be good.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/29276-upgrading-support-systems/
Share on other sites

I have an almost exactly same setup and was looking to upgrade to 230 - 240 rwkw. I decided against it mainly for the cost, once you reach over 200rwkw parts start to get quite expensive.

What support systems you will need:

Z32 AFM

550cc high impedence side feed injectors

Min. heavy duty clutch, twin plate is better

Bosch 910, 040 fuel pump.

Comments:

. You will definately need the Z32 AFM, you will maxing out around 200-210rwkw on the standard.

. 550cc injectors is recommended, however some say using a rising rate regulator is acceptable on stock injectors up to 240rwkw. I prefer not risking it and getting the injectors done. Sard prices are good, but they do not come with the collar necessary for straint plug-in fit. I sourced HKS for 78k Yen.

. I was going to continue to use my heavy duty exedy clutch and see how it went. Without launching hard at every opportunity it should have been OK. It's more a matter of torque than anything anyway. Twin plate would give you no problems - but adds to the cost.

. I was planning on getting the 910 fuel pump because my target was 230-240rwkw, and like you don't plan on doing internals. Getting bigger pump is still OK.

Now that I have helped, can I ask what turbo you are looking to use for this?

Thanks for your help Torrens.

I havent chosen a turbo yet. I'll have to look into that later but I thought I better get the other stuff sorted first. I would prefer a turbo that would not be laggy. I am more interested in having good midrange rather than outright power at the top end. What turbo are you going to use?

as per my signature, the only upgrade to my fuel system was a bosch 910 fuel pump, stock injectors, stock fuel regulator. The injectors are at roughly 70% duty cycle. The trust td06 or a garrett gt30 is probably the go for your turbo upgrade.

Thanks rob. Are you still using your standard clutch?

No Rob's clutch isn't standard.

I also am using stock injectors and have over 300rwkw, but I use a Malpassi fuel reg.

WOW I didn't think that was possible. I have been told by my workshop that I'll need new injectors if I want to go over 220rwkw. If i can get away without getting new ones that would be good. Does anyone have any opinions good or bad on their aftermarket clutches?

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...