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

    • 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...