Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My previous setup copped the following upgrades:

3076 52 trim (replaced the 3071 56 trim);

Extrude honed exhaust housing;

3.5 inch C-Red custom dump and custom CES exhaust (replaced 3 inch ex)

Tial MVR wastegates smaller (replaced Tial 44 wastegates)

100 cpi cat with 5 inch body 3.5 inch in and out;

Gate dump merged back into exhaust just before the cat (previously merged just before it went under the car);

BP98 retune by Sean at Allstargarage.

Unfortunately I don't have back to back dyno's on the same dyno as the retune was done by a different tuner.

3076Dyno.jpg

Will post up the boost graph when received.

Initial driving impressions - this feels more responsive than the previous 3071 setup. Peak hp is achieved at around 6350 rpm.

I suspect the boost control is a little wonky judging by the torque and hp graphs.

links to other threads:

Dyno's

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Sr...l=my+sr20+build

Build Pics etc

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/Sr...l=my+sr20+build

Edited by juggernaut1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/336956-my-sr20-build-part-2-twin-scroll/
Share on other sites

Nice results indeed.

Very interesting that the larger turbo is more responsive - when compared to the old graphs you can see it's clearly more responsive, no question! It's making an extra 40rwkw @ 3200rpm!!

Looks like the larger exhaust & new gate plumbing helped substancially.

What were the old parts removed? (just for info's sake, like what CAT was there etc?)

Any other boost controller alterations? (hard to tell if its more responsive without the graph yet hehe)

Looking good. I'd like to see the boost and AFR overlays.

What sort of muffler setup did you have fitted? And how is the noise level?

Just had a 3.5 inch system fitted to my R33, not droney or anti social so pretty good for every day use. Hurricane mufflers.

Nice results indeed.

Very interesting that the larger turbo is more responsive - when compared to the old graphs you can see it's clearly more responsive, no question! It's making an extra 40rwkw @ 3200rpm!!

Looks like the larger exhaust & new gate plumbing helped substancially.

What were the old parts removed? (just for info's sake, like what CAT was there etc?)

Any other boost controller alterations? (hard to tell if its more responsive without the graph yet hehe)

The old cat was a Metal Cat 4inch body with 3inch in and out. The old exhaust was a CES 3 inch exhaust from the cat back. The previous dump was a full-race motorsports dump with custom lower pipe.

No boost controller alterations

Yes I believe the larger 3.5 inch dump straight off the back of the turbo and introducing the gate pipes back into the exhaust just before the cat are can be attributable for the extra responsiveness. Josh at C-Red did an awesome job of the fabrication work - fitting a 3.5 inch dump and twin 44mm gate tubes in an SR engine bay is no mean feat. The 3.5 inch CES exhaust is also pure quality. In fact I would also suggest its no louder than their 3 inch system even with the 100cpi cat. The mufflers are 2 x large custom made in house at CES.

Edited by juggernaut1

It's made quite a massive difference, goes to show you can make the power with a tight exhaust, but changing it can still reap big benefits.

Be interesting to see the boost graph when its done - it looks like it's coming on at LEAST 500rpm sooner.

And for going to a larger turbo, gettting boost earlier - thats just fken win win win!

Looking good. I'd like to see the boost and AFR overlays.

I was told it made 1.6 bar (23psi) at 3600rpm....which sounds plausable judging by the torque curve....which is awesome for a 3076 on a stock stroke SR

I'd like to see the boost graph though.

Edited by juggernaut1
How can you come to the conclusion of what made the difference when a few things were changed?

Note the trim size, is a 3076 52 trim turbo bigger than a 3071 56 trim turbo?

Yes, a 3076 52 trim turbo is slightly bigger than the 3071 56 trim.

Your right though, I can't conclusively say what did what....I don't even know what boost it was running on the dyno yet apart from that I was told it made 1.6 bar at 3600rpm.

All I do know is that I'm running a slightly bigger turbo and the car is definately more responsive throughout with the changes and the tune.

Perhaps this turbo is just more efficient at whatever boost it is running compared to the 3071?

Edited by juggernaut1

Yup but what if its running an extra 6psi in the midrange? I suppose even the speed that it can boost at is a big improvement.

Not trying to diss the results at all, I think they are great. I just think more investigation is required before understanding what caused the improvement.

You can tell whats caused it.

It's coming onto boost that much earlier though that it wont just be turbo - you don't get 40rwkw @ the same RPM (3200) as this is where boost is just ramping up if you look @ the old graphs and simple compare the torque/power curve. You don't need to see a boost plot to have a fair idea of whats going on.

Peak power/boost, I'm not really worried about here, its the huge improvement in response that is awesome.

It's all happening much much sooner that is more than just a turbo change that's for sure.

My guess is that a GT3037 52T turbo if it has the port shrouded comp housing should be a far better thing than a real GT3071R . Nismoid the only map I've ever seen of the GT37 52T compressor looks good , better in fact that the GT37 56T maps . Admittedly the 52T one I have is not a genuine Garrett map but the islands are vaguely similar to the 56T ones but moved 4-5 lbs further left .

The major change is the center island of highest efficiency - 78% and its wider that the 56Ts one .

Trim wise the 3071R and GT3037 52T are different - 56T and 52T . If you mean inducer diameter then its ~ 55mm for the 52T GT37 and 53.1mm for the 56T GT35 wheel (GT3071R) .

Don't be confused by my use of the the GT35 and GT37 compressor wheel families , they stem from the fact that those compressor wheels originally came from plain bearing GT diesel turbos and their turbines were GT35 and GT37 sized ones ie GT3571 and GT3776 .

A .

Do you think its worth 40rwkw @ 3200rpm though? Just as boost is ramping?

I know the centre is where the bigger difference is, but thats not whats more notable about this setup (not saying is less important etc)

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

    • Block bump. $400. As above cyl 6 needs bore or sleeve.
    • I would think making the argument that the travel is limited by a spring flexing against a spring perch as "the same method". Later on in the document they do state that the spring can't bind on full bump travel and cannot come loose in full rebound travel as well. (which is all very sensible). The laws are actually pretty sensible and reasonable. It's just that the people who enforce and check them don't actually read them or know them accurately. "Oh, coilovers? Instant fail mate. Don't even need to look at it." - Guy who will be instantly reported by me. There is probably merit to people who do get defected for height also get defected for the suspension in that state that allows it. I did never consider the people who are complaining about coilovers being picked on are also running around at 50mm off the floor.
    • I think given SAU's knowledge of E85 we can strongly conclude that 10% ethanol in almost any situation is entirely fine. Almost all of the myths against E85 were overblown, let alone E10.
    • From your link See bold text, is this referring to damper settings, if so that may a issue for "some" inspectors, I cannot see aftermarket coilovers having the evidence that "must be available that its functional performance is equivalent to the original" Maybe just remove the adjustment knows and hope for the best???? Meh 5.2 Suspension travel In all instances, modifications to a vehicle’s suspension must ensure the integrity of the system and not compromise the ride quality. At least two thirds of the original suspension travel should be maintained in both directions (rebound (i.e. extension) and bump (i.e. compression)), and rebound must be limited by the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer or if this is not practicable due to the nature of the modification, an equivalent method. If an alternative method is used, evidence must be available that its functional performance is equivalent to the original.
    • They actually don't - They adhere to VSB14 rules just like Victoria. The rules are against CABIN adjustable height, and it quite clearly states that the height has to be within parameters. I asked the VASS engineer to confirm this when I got my car engineered and they refused to engineer the coilovers because they didn't meet the requirements for requiring engineering. (mine are height adjustable.) People "Not wanting to bother" with "Actually reading/knowing/adhering to the rules" should result in fines and immediately losing the ability to issue blue slips and/or RWC's in Vic.
×
×
  • Create New...