Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

Last year at a car show we got our R33 dynoed with the following mods,

hks bov, cat back 3" fujitsubo exhaust system, turbo smart boost controller (red one), blitz sus pod filter and 12 psi on stock turbo, ecu and intercooler.

At that time we had the problem of a miss fire because of the spark plugs not gaped to .7 so it was missing on the dyno but we still got

162rwkw on a hot day. we also had a slipping clutch

Tomorrow were taking it in again on the same dyno to see what we have gained.

the list below are the mods that we have added to the top.

Heavy duty clutch, 3" dump pipe, FMIC, high flow cat, 14psi of boost. - we have reset the ecu after installing all of these mods.

i'll post the dyno graphs tomorrow.

What do you guys/girls expect i would get with these new mods ?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/33987-r33-gts-t-dyno-graph/
Share on other sites

I think you would be doing well to get 180+ rwkw (241rwhp)

Different dyno's will give different readouts (as I have found out over the last 18mths).

Edit: '95 S1 w/ 85,000km.

For me (in order):

(Unigroup)

* FMIC

* HKS Pod

* Daiken Exedy Organic Sports Clutch

* Nismo Cat-back

* 12psi

* Stock Turbo

* Stock ECU

= 192rwkw (257rwhp)

(Unigroup)

* FMIC

* HKS Pod

* Daiken Exedy Organic Sports Clutch

* Custom 3" Front/dump + 3" Cat

* Nismo Cat-back

* 12psi

* Stock Turbo

* Stock ECU

= 203rwkw (272rwhp)

(Unknown at Western Sydney)

* FMIC

* HKS Pod

* Daiken Exedy Organic Sports Clutch

* Custom 3" Front/dump + 3" Cat

* Nismo Cat-back

* 12psi

* Stock Turbo

* Stock ECU

= 186rwkw (249rwhp)

(Croydon Racing Development)

* FMIC

* HKS Pod

* Daiken Exedy Organic Sports Clutch

* Custom 3" Front/dump + 3" Cat

* Nismo Cat-back

* Bosch 040 Fuel Pump

* 12psi

* Stock Turbo

* Stock ECU

= 180rwkw (241rwhp)

So as you can see different dyno's and different days (the above UniGroup days were both 30+) certainly make a difference. I certainly noticed a "seat of the pants difference" between #1 and #2 and also #3 and #4 (no mods were done between #2 and #3) but the Dyno's didn't show this.

As Benm was saying, it's too hard to 'guess' what power your going to get cause every dyno is different.

The important thing is that you get a gain.

I would take your old dyno print out along when you do the new run and then compare the two graphs (as long as it's done on the same dyno).

Just as a comparison (for what it's worth), mine has pretty much the same mods as yours but at 12psi and did a 169rwkw.

Again, it's all about getting a gain on the last run, and also, outright power isn't everything. I only gained about 10rwkw at maximum power, but I managed to get rid of the flat spot in the mid range. Getting rid of that gained me about 34rwkw in the mid range !!!

J

Hey just got back from the dyno and it was done on the same dyno as last time (shoot-out mode).

I'll post the graph tonight.

We got a max of 184.5rwkw's (247.4hp at rear wheels) on the last run. that was with some more boost. but the a/f ratios were going stupid.

With the last run we were running 14.5psi which the a/f ratios were leaning right out to 30.0 which isent good. but on 12psi we got a/f ratios of 12.4 so we left the boost on 12 intill we can get bigger fuel pump and injectors. if thats the problem?

We are pretty happy with the results going from 162rwkw's to 184.5 rwkw's just in (front mount, 3" dumpie.) and in a month or 2 were gonig to bolt on a bigger turbo and do fuel pump and so on and chuck it back on the dyno ;)

we noting trying for power we were just seing what the difference in mods made to the car.

unfortunaly we live 4hr's away from the nearest track so its not every week we can make it out their.

with the first list of mods in my first post (with out the miss firing as we fixed it) we got a 14.1 pass on the quarter at 103mph on street tires. but we had a really really bad slipping clutch.

So were going to take it down again next month and see what the outcome is. were hoping for a high 13 or better ;)

i wouldnt put on the turbo yet, id concertrate on upping the torque low down, do the turbo later, check out some of syneykid's posts on what else you can do before the turbo

i wouldnt run 14psi without some form of fuel control, even without an safc, probably 12psi max

your just asking for shit to go bang :cheers: - this explains why yours a/f's = psycho

just cos you are seeing more power at 14psi doesnt mean its good power, probably doing damage than good

you'll probably loose power adding more boost as the ecu corrects the timing and stuff so it doesn't go bang.

im no expert but this is what i've learnt anyway

agreed that dyno figures can be somewhat misleading but i believe you can get a rough estimate from a dyno graph, and thus, they are a tuning tool - i wouldnt class them as being an accurate reader of power.

comments about track times are abit more valid however i wanted to say that an ET is sometimes pointless aswell. the best indicator of power is the terminal speed.

fwiw, i have recorded a 199.5rwkw on c&v's dynodynamics dyno. ran a 13.8s ET with a 2.1sec 60ft and 99mph terminal speed. goes to show that the car was tuned for mid-range...

mods are as follows:

-powerfc

-avcr @ 0.8bar

-fmic

-full exhaust

-stock airbox with hiflow air filter

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...