Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's still only one servo to get it from in NSW... kind of limiting.

Ye same for us :down:

I never saw PULP mentioned before you, Nismoid - I thought E85 is pump gas in Oz these days, too? It is showing up a lot around the world....

Well 700cc injectors gives it away, you'd need 1000cc or bigger using E85 :)

There is only a couple of servo's in Melb.

To give you an idea... The closest to me (and i live basically in the city), is 30mins drive one way.

If some one says they want a certain amount of power, i think we need to assume it is on 98 octane. It is a bit pointless telling some one they can make the power on "x" turbo, they go an buy it, try to make the power and can't. Then when they come back you say "oh sorry, i ment it would make that power on C16, E85, Nitrous..." etc.

I also wouldn't classify E85 as pump gas in Oz.

Couldn't agree more.

E85 is like saying you made that power on C16 - utterly irrelevant for most people being you can't get E85 anywhere in most states.

and that is that...

Maybe you should read the first post then?

700cc injectors

i want a single top mounted turbo and want to make 350rwk

700cc injectors should manage it on e85...

but either way i agree with pm-r33, when people ask for a power figure, its PULP unless otherwise stated...

Fair enough, I wasn't sure if E85 was quickly becoming the new premium or not - I'd imagine if it came out here we'd all be getting tuned on it. I know everyone who has access to E10 here are doing so :down:

It was meant to spread to heaps of servo's here in Melb really quickly... this was around 12 months ago for Melb.

Since then not ONE of the servo's marked for E85 have started stocking it yet. Just the original few... So something serious must be going on to stop this becoming more widespread as it is a massive money maker. Few discussions with friends etc we roughly think its more profitable than PULP so why a company wouldn't adopt a more profitable product must mean there are issues.

Either way - assumption always is PULP. We've never assumed it was C16, Sunoco104 or anything else in the past... to magically start now is silly.

Slightly different, E85 costs less than PULP per litre and officially could be available from the pump... so quite different from race gas. But yeah I get what you are saying.

I find it interesting that no one over there has managed to get more than 320-330kw @ wheels out of one on pump gas, though I am not sure exactly how harsh your dynos are. In the states there are people who have done around 350kw or so on PULP on Dynojet rolling roads and Dynapacks. Either way, I'd call a GT3582R more suitable for 350kw @ wheels on a drift car - you're going to be in high revs most of the time anyway, surely?

Slightly different, E85 costs less than PULP per litre and officially could be available from the pump... so quite different from race gas. But yeah I get what you are saying.

I find it interesting that no one over there has managed to get more than 320-330kw @ wheels out of one on pump gas, though I am not sure exactly how harsh your dynos are. In the states there are people who have done around 350kw or so on PULP on Dynojet rolling roads and Dynapacks. Either way, I'd call a GT3582R more suitable for 350kw @ wheels on a drift car - you're going to be in high revs most of the time anyway, surely?

dyno jets read quite high and ive noticed the us guys tend to qoute flywheel power when using dynapacks (they use the TC factor caculator)

The issue with E85 seems to be the storage tanks,no one wants to cough up for the required tanks and subsequent regs etc..

Out of curiosity what car is this RB26 going to be in ? I'm guessing a GTR wouldn't be such a good drift car ?

Probably the real thing to to know is what is "adequate" power output because if 350 is too much sizing a turbo to suit is a little pointless .

Now I know nothing about drift but if I again had to guess I'd think real strong mid range torque with good throttle and boost response - to the hoof - would be everything .

I'm thinking the "burning" question should be how much torque and how accurately can it be modulated .

Not my money but would an RB25 with a supercharger be simpler/cheaper ?

A .

Out of curiosity what car is this RB26 going to be in ? I'm guessing a GTR wouldn't be such a good drift car ?

Probably the real thing to to know is what is "adequate" power output because if 350 is too much sizing a turbo to suit is a little pointless .

Now I know nothing about drift but if I again had to guess I'd think real strong mid range torque with good throttle and boost response - to the hoof - would be everything .

I'm thinking the "burning" question should be how much torque and how accurately can it be modulated .

Not my money but would an RB25 with a supercharger be simpler/cheaper ?

A .

superchargers generally suck unfortunaly we do alot of superchargers on v8's and so forth and it is suprising how laggy most of the popular ones are.. makes a T51R look responsive :down:

typical boost curve for a charger --- >

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/po...boost-curve.jpg

Thread with a few graphs ive posted ----> http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Fi...66#entry4561766

A properly setup charger (900nm @ 3000rpm :) ) ----> post-a220072-mallo-charged.jpg

Edited by URAS
dyno jets read quite high and ive noticed the us guys tend to qoute flywheel power when using dynapacks (they use the TC factor caculator)

The issue with E85 seems to be the storage tanks,no one wants to cough up for the required tanks and subsequent regs etc..

Yes Trent is right!

The issue with E85 is the cost of the replacement tank lining. I was told it costs 40 GRAND per tank upgrade so as you can imagine who is going to spent that kinda cash on a upgrade that will not return the money for at least 5 - 10 years ?

It is also a legal requirement to have this upgrade to be able to stock E85.

Wait till holden brings out E85 flex. Things will change very fast.

My RB30DET ran out of injectors with Nismo 740cc at around 345 - 350 rwkw (mainline dyno)

There is plenty of info on my E85 thread about this stuff.... worth the read.

Yep :P

Fact. A GT3076 will not make 350rwkw on PULP. Nor will it make 360rwkw, or 374rwkw on PULP.

Fact. You will not make 350rwkw on E85 with 700cc injectors, nor will you make 360rwkw, or 374rwkw with those injectors.

Fact. A GT35 will do make 350rwkw on PULP with 700cc injectors, which is the question that was asked.

It's not the 'most responsive' option, but that power goal is in a little bit of no-mans land. However if you are drifting, the first 3500rpm of a tacho is rather pointless anyway.

Overall it's laughable to think E85 results (a specialist fuel no different to C16 at this stage, if anything C16 is EASIER to source) were brought into this thread just to try and backup incorrect facts...

And then try and call 'ignorance' :)

Shows how ignorant those with the incorrect facts really are.

lol

just to prove your "facts" wrong... i cant wait till conan7772 gets bigger injectors, pumps a extra 1-2psi into the motor and makes the extra whole 13rwkw to make 350rwkw on pump fuel no less

Guilt-Toys car was making 345-350rwkw with Nismo 740cc's on e85 bump the fuel pressure a little with a reg and you will make more with 700cc's

Noone said that 35R's will not make the power...

Edited by Cerbera

I could make 360rwkw from GT-SS's if i want, doesn't make it true though does it?

From page one incase you've forgotten it, again. :P

I couldn't care less what a dyno says until there is some real proof to back that up.

Of which, as usual, there is ... zero.

But then you do love your arguments without real evidence :P

Lemme know when you have the evidence, i suspect though... we'll never see it.

A GT3076 isn't going to make 350rwkw in a .82

Al has maxed his out @ 306rwkw or there abouts.

That is a solid 50rwkw shy really...

NYTSKY made 362rwkw with a 3076R and Denzo just made 374rwkw the other day...

your ignorance is always bliss

I couldn't care less what a dyno says until there is some real proof to back that up.

Of which, as usual, there is ... zero.

But then you do love your arguments without real evidence :P

Oh i see it is E85 - well that comes as little surprise, everyone seems to make a solid 40-50rwkw when changing from PULP (which everybody has access too), to E85 (which a lot of people do not)

It is not PULP 360rwkw...

There is no way the OP is going to make 360rwkw on E85 with 700c injectors, so he is clearly talking about PULP.

So its still back to exactly what i said, seems im not as ignorant as you are silly to put E85 results into a PULP thread... but that is fairly typical of you. :P

epic lol...

r31nismoid: 3076R is not going to make 350rwkw

cerbera: here are 2 that made more than 350rwkw

r31nismoid: i dont believe you, therefore your wrong

r31nismoid: *finds out he is wrong" epic backpedal and changes topic to e85

Edited by Cerbera

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...