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

    • 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...