Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lets say the limiting factor for your engine producing more power is the turbo, and not the fuelling system/strength of internals.

An example is the stock turbo on say an rb25det, being as to run say 12psi the turbo has to spin harder and harder as the revs rise to continue to keep producing the same boost level (as more air is required) it is obvious it is going to be spinning almost twice as fast at say 7500rpm opposed to 3500rpm even though the boost level remains the same.

Now I was wondering if this means you could run say 15-18psi at low rpms when the turbo first comes on, say around 3-4500rpm and then have it drop back down to 10psi towards redline. This way you would be maintaining fairly constant rpms in the turbo and you would be getting far more power in the midrange without overspeeding it at redline.

Now this is assuming that reason the air heats up in the turbo is due to the speed it is operating at, and not the pressure it is running. Could someone confirm if my thinking is correct or not? Because if it is and the air temps are ok at low rpm even at higher boost levels, then I cannot think of any reason why this would be detrimental to the engine or the turbo, providing of course the motor/fuel system could sustain 18psi.

think youll find that running higher boost will be a problem rather then the rpm

I dont think the RPM of the turbo vs the RPM of the engine is as relative as twice the engine rpm is equal to twice the turbo rpm exactly. Boost creates heat through friction im pretty sure, there will be heat from high rpm as well but yeah im not sure your plan will work, though it is a good idea

I'm not sure it will work either otherwise other people would have done it by now, but I'm curious as to where I am going wrong. I suspect that intake heat is a function of boost pressure, not how much air it is supplying as if this is the case, then what I proposed doesn't work.

when my ebc was still working, my car was tuned at 15psi on the stock turbo up to about 4krpm, and then down to 12 psi till redline.

i asked the tuner about it, and he said at the lower rpm the turbo can handle it fine, as long as it's not still running 15psi at the top.

i was a bit suss, but he was confident.

his reasons were the same as yours. to give it a nice kick coming onto the power. makes it feel much quicker.

it was absolutely fine till the ebc stopped working. now i'm just running 13ish psi with a MBC.

Edited by Munkyb0y
Evos do this from the factory, and if you look at a compressor map, you can see why. The factory boost control runs directly along one of the efficiency line.

In factory spec they spike to what, 20psi and drop back to around 1bar

However - interestingly - you can actually hold 18-20psi right until redline once you give some boost control & a tune on the factory turbo.

Suddenly you've then gone from 140-150awkw (EVO9) to a tad over 200 on the factory turbo without a drama in the world. Clearly arguing the point about efficiency.

It could just being setup like that most likely to conserve motor/parts and so on.

I'm a bit dubious of such a compressor map for the EVO turbos based upon this (the above im talking EVO 7/8/9)

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...