Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Interesting to note the SR22VET is superior on all accounts. Its over half a litre smaller.

It goes to show that cylinder head technology pays out a lot more than cubes.

I think there is more to it than that - compare it with similar sized smaller and "higher performance" wheels to an HKS T04Z, and even the larger (and older tech) HKS T51R Kai on an RB28 running pump gas: kaibb%26%2Bto4z%2Bpower.jpg

Going by that, a T04Z spools better than both turbos - and a T51R Kai is not far off them at all.

Regardless, yeah - SR22VET is way up there in terms of efficiency, while RBs are not so much... by todays standards.

The head on Ninos's engine is top shelf and costs more $$ than what most people are prepared to pay, hence a nice result. That and his engine is a result of endless testing by Advance Motor mechanics and associated companies/people.

Its is all about combo rather than bolting on an "awesome" turbo and expecting to get the same results as others.

Interesting to note the SR22VET is superior on all accounts. Its over half a litre smaller.

It goes to show that cylinder head technology pays out a lot more than cubes.

The head on Ninos's engine is top shelf and costs more $$ than what most people are prepared to pay, hence a nice result. That and his engine is a result of endless testing by Advance Motor mechanics and associated companies/people.

Its is all about combo rather than bolting on an "awesome" turbo and expecting to get the same results as others.

Glad to see we agree.

I was not implying the VET head alone is all the difference, but the technology implemented in that cylinder head is clearly a winner. That means both the factory VET side of things and the work the said firms have put towards it.

Lith when I look at those graphs I still see that the RB28 you posted is behind. I typically look for the point where the incline starts to nose over and I consider that to be the point where the motor has hit its threshold. The said VET is hitting that point at 4,700 whereas the RB28 you posted is 5100 on one of the turbos and 5500 on the other.

Obviously there are only hundreds of RPM in it for vastly older tech turbos but I think it notable to consider the big difference in capacity between the two motors. Plus, my comments were actually specific to the two results shown rather than general. I am more than confident that we can find a VET result which is shadowed by an RB.

Agree Ninos engine is sensational and I'm expecting similar results with mine but isn't that RB28 on 93 octane? If so then not really a like for like comparison or even comparable IMO.

Those turbos on 93 octane are not going to perform anywhere there capability on any engine let alone that one.

Edited by SRS13

Yeah definitely, the thing that really does impress me about it is that power is huge for a 64mm compressor on pump gas - I reckon. I'm not sold on the power delivery, though - I think there are competitors which would do that with better delivery at this stage.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Went out again last night with new suspension, looking forward to a prepped track and getting the car to hook up. Ran a PB on lower trap speed and a slower 60ft so that's a good start! 2730lb, only thing removed was the passenger seat and side pipe fitted. Looking forward to get this thing to hook up so we can tap out the 7175!

Different angle with incar

Edited by PJ.

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

    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
    • I know I have to get a wheel alignment but until then I just need to bring the rear tyres in a bit they're wearing to the belt on the inside and brand new on the outside edge. I did shorten the arms a bit but got it wrong now after a few klms the Slip and VDC lights come on. I'd just like to get it to a point where I can drive for another week or two before getting an alignment. I've had to pay a lot of other stuff recently so doing it myself is my only option 
×
×
  • Create New...