Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Paul - answer me this...did my rb30 have a truck load of torque with 280's? U drove it so why not share your experience haha (yes it was a 3ltr BUT it had big cams)

Yes it made more grunt down low and it had more torque then mine (as you would expect for the longer stroke) but having driven Steve's his definitely came on earlier again.

It is funny how pople blindly believe what people tell them without any understanding as to why certains things occur. It is no magic Racepace trick that stock camshafts work well with small internal wastegate turbocharghers like any of the common low mount upgrades on a GTR. Exhaust manifold back pressure is significantly higher than boost pressure is most of these scenarios... big duration camshafts would cause reversion of the exhaust due to the pressure differential and overlap that the camshafts give. Thus very short duration camshafts are ideal for small (ish) low mount turbocharger upgrades because of the compromised turbine housings, internal wastegates, etc.

On the other hand tubular single turbo manifolds with large external wastegate turbine housings create a much lower exhaust manifold back pressure. Once the ratio of exhaust manifold back pressure and boost pressure get close to 1:1 then is the time for big duration camshafts with appreciable overlap. What will occur is almost a scavenging of the exhaust ports as both inlet and exhaust valves are open at the same time; in short, with a sacrifice lower in the rpm range higher power is achievable and it will come on earlier as guys like Red R Racing have proved.

I would be measuring exhaust manifold back pressure before choosing cams.

Also, instead of people choosing small cams with the belief that it will bring on bigger turbochargers earlier they should be getting more head work, extrude honing OEM manifolds and get a decent twin 3" exhaust!

Thanks for sharing Mike and its about time we have an educated response on this thread...in other words, small turbos run with small cams and large turbos run with big cams - for optimum results which makes sense.

Now with your last paragraph on the belief of running smaller cams to bring on power earlier, I was advised exactly what you wrote and I did that (only because i was running larger turbo's, -10's) i.e. Head and oem manifold work. Obviously my power band was also dependent on my tune and how the cams were dialed in (my clear instruction was to crack over 400awkw which I did). it was not tuned for mid range, although, was still more than a handful :worship:

I dont 'intimately' understand the mechanics of what combinations work best as I don't have the experience of building and tuning 100's of cars and its obvious that most ppl here are in the same boat hence it is a sigh of relief reading your post :)

lol not tuned for midrange? :rolleyes:

u have never been asked what type of tune would u like?

i.e. street tune, race tune, is your goal peak power or mid range drive-ability? i guess my tuner is more thorough...what can i say :thumbsup:

It is funny how pople blindly believe what people tell them without any understanding as to why certains things occur. It is no magic Racepace trick that stock camshafts work well with small internal wastegate turbocharghers like any of the common low mount upgrades on a GTR. Exhaust manifold back pressure is significantly higher than boost pressure is most of these scenarios... big duration camshafts would cause reversion of the exhaust due to the pressure differential and overlap that the camshafts give. Thus very short duration camshafts are ideal for small (ish) low mount turbocharger upgrades because of the compromised turbine housings, internal wastegates, etc.

On the other hand tubular single turbo manifolds with large external wastegate turbine housings create a much lower exhaust manifold back pressure. Once the ratio of exhaust manifold back pressure and boost pressure get close to 1:1 then is the time for big duration camshafts with appreciable overlap. What will occur is almost a scavenging of the exhaust ports as both inlet and exhaust valves are open at the same time; in short, with a sacrifice lower in the rpm range higher power is achievable and it will come on earlier as guys like Red R Racing have proved.

I would be measuring exhaust manifold back pressure before choosing cams.

Also, instead of people choosing small cams with the belief that it will bring on bigger turbochargers earlier they should be getting more head work, extrude honing OEM manifolds and get a decent twin 3" exhaust!

Very detailed post mike looks suspiciously like something dirtgarage would have posted back in the day....

It is funny how pople blindly believe what people tell them without any understanding as to why certains things occur.

No better example of this than ole mate Marko really.

i am biting my tongue :/

im not stooping to your level ash, however, i will commend you on your approach - good work

About time you did, everyone will benefit.

I mean you supposedly asked for a tune without a midrange...

And are firmly on the big cam bandwagon this month:

Good point and why I had 280 degree kelfords in my 2630

Yet only 2 months ago you come out with this?

Hi all,

My rb30dett is now fitted in my mates circuit GTR ...

The 280degree cams are too big and power comes in too late for circuit so will swap them out for 264/11mm lift to bring turbos on 1000rpm earlier.

Says it all really. :rolleyes:

Very detailed post mike looks suspiciously like something dirtgarage would have posted back in the day....

Ryan give me a call man happy to discuss. I do my own research... I am disappointed you think that. Might just keep the information to myself in future.

It is funny how pople blindly believe what people tell them without any understanding as to why certains things occur. It is no magic Racepace trick that stock camshafts work well with small internal wastegate turbocharghers like any of the common low mount upgrades on a GTR. Exhaust manifold back pressure is significantly higher than boost pressure is most of these scenarios... big duration camshafts would cause reversion of the exhaust due to the pressure differential and overlap that the camshafts give. Thus very short duration camshafts are ideal for small (ish) low mount turbocharger upgrades because of the compromised turbine housings, internal wastegates, etc.

On the other hand tubular single turbo manifolds with large external wastegate turbine housings create a much lower exhaust manifold back pressure. Once the ratio of exhaust manifold back pressure and boost pressure get close to 1:1 then is the time for big duration camshafts with appreciable overlap. What will occur is almost a scavenging of the exhaust ports as both inlet and exhaust valves are open at the same time; in short, with a sacrifice lower in the rpm range higher power is achievable and it will come on earlier as guys like Red R Racing have proved.

I would be measuring exhaust manifold back pressure before choosing cams.

Also, instead of people choosing small cams with the belief that it will bring on bigger turbochargers earlier they should be getting more head work, extrude honing OEM manifolds and get a decent twin 3" exhaust!

Why does wastegate orifice size matter? If the boost is stable then there is no difference in exahust backpressure between a 38mm gate and 60mm gate.

If manifold backpress is approaching 1:1 a smaller profile camshaft will always spool earlier in almost all applications if both are timed to deliver maximum response. This is due to the fact that smaller profiles generally mean smaller lift which increases port velocity therefore increasing the scavenging effect.

But then what is the point of a large turbo on a displacement that is only going to be useful above 6000rpm if the cams wont support airflow above 7000rpm.

Ryan give me a call man happy to discuss. I do my own research... I am disappointed you think that. Might just keep the information to myself in future.

All good man just having a friendly dig.. :thumbsup: Back on topic...

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...