Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

not sure of the exact specs denham

but its got a pretty huge ex wheel and housing on it

on my mates sr20 he runs 26psi but his has a smaller housing and wheel on the back - makes bout 300rwkw

i know that there r other turbos out there that can make that power at lower boost levels - but when ur paying 900 for a brand new t04 what am i to whinge :P

  • 2 weeks later...

no its chromed its all a bit dirty at the moment and not quite finished but its working out well so far boost response is alot stronger and im having heaps of fun with the external wastegate pipe and pedestrians. the gf rekons it sounds like its goin to hurt someone or sumthing

here she is all bolted back in place.. car goes as well now as it did before on 13psi now only using 9psi so im happy tune up will be soon ill keep you all posted.

Did u manage to hook the 2 springs onto the clips with your xtr thermal blanket?

I am having a bit of a problem getting my to clip on

Hi guys, a lot of people look at the other upgrades (cams, porting, manifold etc), on a turbo car, as a way of increasing the maximum power at one particular rpm point. That's not what I do it for, I actually use these other items to increase the average power over the used rpm range. I also use them to reduce the amount of boost I run to achieve the same maximum power, this increases the responsiveness of the engine as well.

A comparison;

1. I have an RB engine that needs 1.6 bar to achieve 600 bhp with standard cams, ports, lowered compression ratio (thick head gasket) and a combined dump. It has 360 bhp average power (4,000 rpm to 7,500 rpm).

2. The same RB engine that only needs 1.3 bar to achieve 600 bhp with 264 cams, ported, manifolds matched, standard compression ratio and a split dump. It has 440 bhp average power (4,000 rpm to 7,500 rpm).

Some people would say that I wasted my money on the cams, porting, split dump etc since I still only have 600 bhp. I would of course reply yes, but I have a 22% increase in average power, so the car will be substantially faster. Plus the response will be also dramatically improved by the enhanced breathing, with better off boost performance and faster to build boost.

Hope that makes sense.

sure does

ur peak power stays the same but ur power over the rev range to acheive that peak power increases

torque would increase over that rev range to achieve a faster car lower down, resulting in a faster car at higher speeds

correct?

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...