Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I thought the car was already tuned?

the r33 that got tuned last week with .5 front .82 rear 3582 chra, didnt make peak power until somewhere around 185-193kmph mark

this one with .7 front .82 rear makes its power 55kmph sooner? be good to see a few other dyno sheets with rpm boost afr

I have built 2x GT3582 spec sleeve bearing turbos. One was sent to you in your KKR housing and .70 comp. The other one was built in .82 turbine with .50 comp.

With the 2nd turbo I virtually gave it away for free just to get a experience after receiving a complaint from you with the lag issue. It was not as bad as what you've experienced with the KKR housing.

That R33 had stock cams, internal gate and turbo didn't have any run in time. Straight on and dyno tune. So the polymolicue libricator that we used to stablise the shaft would have some affects on the response.

I'm going to get both cars to do another run in few weeks time so we can compare results, and see the differences that external gate and cams have made.

Nick believe KM/H is more accountable. I had a look through the dynosheet section and it seems KMH/RPM scale varies from dyno to dyno.

I'm taking a average sacle of:

1KM = 39RPM. So you can work it out:

65 : 2535

85 : 3315

105 : 4095

125 : 4875

145 : 5655

165 : 6435

175 : 6825

His dyno's analyzer is broken. it can only show Power , speed and torque at this stage. Probably can get the car to run on another dyno once its tuned.

kwickr33: Let me know when you want to run on more boost. I can cover your dyno time thats not a problem.

How is Km/h more accountable when your claiming spool speed in rpm. Wheel spin will root up Km/h.RPM/KMH ramp rate can change speed of spool slightly but engine rpm is directly proportional to engine/spool speed Unless your trying to dodge the printouts and running in 3rd. Rpm would be best to back up claims

Edited by RB26 cefiro

The tuner believed in such, all tunes he've done for me and my customers cars are in KMH. I did question about scales in RPMS which that was his answer.

Also this is a roller dyno, if it does not read the RPMS directly of the engine but accumulates it from KMH then his explanation do make sense

The tuner believed in such, all tunes he've done for me and my customers cars are in KMH. I did question about scales in RPMS which that was his answer.

Also this is a roller dyno, if it does not read the RPMS directly of the engine but accumulates it from KMH then his explanation do make sense

If it is a hub dyno like a dynapac then it would be a accurate account as long as you enter the correct diff and gear ratio figures. But the tuner is using a chassis Roller dyno which introduces many other factors the main being wheel spin, inertia and size of tyre/rim etc. Your tuner is using a mainline so there is no reason not to be able to show rpm as it can be picked up from either coil or injector unless he is either too lazy to hook up or there is a bit of smoke and mirror action going on. A log of also the boost/rpm would also show response

What ramp rate was it run up on??

Edited by RB26 cefiro
I thought the car was already tuned?

the r33 that got tuned last week with .5 front .82 rear 3582 chra, didnt make peak power until somewhere around 185-193kmph mark

this one with .7 front .82 rear makes its power 55kmph sooner? be good to see a few other dyno sheets with rpm boost afr

That would be because he rang the ting up in third gear instead of forth. Dont belive me 4th gear is 1.00:1 ratio 3rd is 1.302:1

So multipy his claimed 140km/h x 1.302 = 183kph which is close enough to call BS

You are telling me he's driven 175KM/H on 3rd gear.

This was done on 4th gear. I was present duing the tune. Go to the dynosheet section and check every one elses reading that is on the 4th gear and see what's the average KMH they’ve run.

never mind. I will take a video for you on the next tune up.

You are telling me he's driven 175KM/H on 3rd gear.

This was done on 4th gear. I was present duing the tune. Go to the dynosheet section and check every one elses reading that is on the 4th gear and see what's the average KMH they've run.

never mind. I will take a video for you on the next tune up.

Power figure is very strange after 140km/h dead flat at 300kw for 35Km/h the power to 175. The power actual peaks above the 140kmh at 154 and 164. If it was at a fast enough ramp rate you could easily over speed car on limiter till then which can give that effect of dead flat power

Well I'm not a dyno expert. I guess I need to ask Nick on Monday.

It was definitely run on 4th gear, I was watching him doing that. If rev limiter goes on and off I don't believe you will get a constraint power curve or have any incensement in speed.

Other thing is note where the peak is, The car had few slight miss up the top. which you can see from the inconsistence after 150kmh. Not sure if that could cause that.

Look. This car's coming back for further tuning in few weeks time. I will shoot some video footages so we are all clear.

  • 2 months later...

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...