Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

A little? lol... A LOT!

I just wish I new where to start, it's got everything it needs to make a decent number, but it's knock restricted.

When jez tuned it last the exhuast was way to small, now that I've got a bigger system coming from jap and I made some 3inch tuned length front pipes into a 4inch merge. The exhuast issues should b over, so it's back to jezza's shop to c if there's any gains.

Strange thing is, I had a 4inch system made, and we chucked it on the dyno, only got 7kw gain with adding timing and boost.

C what happens, maybe we need to play with the cams, or something.

Depends what manifold you get.. The Full race one I have was designed for fitment on 33/34s. Tried putting it on my 32 and the compressor fouled on it..apparently full race have rectified this for 32s now

A/C didn't work anyway so I'm not too fussed, then again I may have wanted to fix it one day :s

I saw a dyno graph from a famous 32 on the weekend. It's now running a Precision single (6766 I think he said). The Precision shits allover the -5's for response on the graph, and from his times, on the track too! The 32 is still 2.6 as well so these turbos are obviously a good thing!

Correct! and yes WOW! it has me thinking the EFR's are on their last chance... :yes:

I've already emailed him to find out exactly what version he has on the 32.

The 34 is running one also, however he likes the one on the 32 better.

One thing he did say to me was to buy bigger than I think I'll need and I won't be disappointed, they are that good.

I would choose a Precision over an EFR any day. . .too much hype with the BW's. . .too many results to look away from Precision. . .sorry, but a 2-year wait on an EFR is ridiculous. . .

bri73y.. .do you have a chart for that r32 running the 6766? I'm running this on my FD. . .sounds too good to be true that it would shit on the -5's. . .

I would choose a Precision over an EFR any day. . .too much hype with the BW's. . .too many results to look away from Precision. . .sorry, but a 2-year wait on an EFR is ridiculous. . .

bri73y.. .do you have a chart for that r32 running the 6766? I'm running this on my FD. . .sounds too good to be true that it would shit on the -5's. . .

No sorry, it's not my car, although it has lived in my garage for a while previously. Damn should've stolen bits off it when I had a chance.... :whistling:

Correct! and yes WOW! it has me thinking the EFR's are on their last chance... :yes:

I've already emailed him to find out exactly what version he has on the 32.

The 34 is running one also, however he likes the one on the 32 better.

One thing he did say to me was to buy bigger than I think I'll need and I won't be disappointed, they are that good.

Any email back? The one on the 34 did look a little bigger but by how much I couldn't say. I'd love to know!

What do you think you will order for your car John? 6466?

Depends what manifold you get.. The Full race one I have was designed for fitment on 33/34s. Tried putting it on my 32 and the compressor fouled on it..apparently full race have rectified this for 32s now

A/C didn't work anyway so I'm not too fussed, then again I may have wanted to fix it one day :s

Hey Joe, or anyone for that matter..

Is there any evidence that the Full Race Manifold is worth the cost vs 6boost & ETM etc being about double the $ ??

Will wait and see how Piggaz's turns out, as I also have a 2.8, been running a TO4Z for a couple of years on stainless china manifold, time to get with the times, with a good manifold and probably a Precision..

wouldn't the one Jez is running, with 30+ psi on a 2.8L with cams etc see 450-500rwkw ? with awesome responce .

Edited by tricstar

Hey Joe, or anyone for that matter..

Is there any evidence that the Full Manifold is worth the cost vs 6boost & ETM etc being about double the $ ??

Will wait and see how Piggaz's turns out, as I also have a 2.8, been running a TO4Z for a couple of years on stainless china manifold, time to get with the times, with a 6boost and unplumbing the gate.

wouldn't the one Jez is running, with 30+ psi on a 2.8L with cams etc see 450-500rwkw ? with awesome responce .

Fixed, no need for new turbo :)

wouldn't the one Jez is running, with 30+ psi on a 2.8L with cams etc see 450-500rwkw ? with awesome responce .

Well it made 436 on a 2.3 SR with 24-25 lbs of boost on the same dyno as i made 425 with -5's. It beat my setup low end and pipped me up top. I'd love to see what it would make with 30 psi!

If the 6466 is too big just rip it off and drop back 1 size. Little touch up and away we go!

Hey Joe, or anyone for that matter..

Is there any evidence that the Full Race Manifold is worth the cost vs 6boost & ETM etc being about double the $ ??

Will wait and see how Piggaz's turns out, as I also have a 2.8, been running a TO4Z for a couple of years on stainless china manifold, time to get with the times, with a good manifold and probably a Precision..

wouldn't the one Jez is running, with 30+ psi on a 2.8L with cams etc see 450-500rwkw ? with awesome responce .

Honestly mate don't know if the full race is better or not. Would need to do some back to back testing which would be a real pain in the ass as you would need to plumb up 2 different sets of gates.

If I had my time again I would probably just bought a 6 boost one for reasons such as

1. Cheaper

2. Quicker to obtain (each fullrace manifold is made On order)

3. If it cracked or failed in anyway would be easier for warranty

4. The full race is a bit of a nightmare plumbing wise.

Though I do like how the manifold looks and how it makes the turbo sit towards the front of the car.

I also had to cut a bit of the re enforcement out of my bonnet to fit the Massive frame of the BW

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...