Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As long as there is plenty of turbo flow and everything else to back it up, more than happy to consider it. If you like, pm me the details of the engine mod's and we can go from there.

I want to get results at different boost levels to see the overall impact. I also have an egt kit I would like to install to get even more data to back things up one way or another.

Lol funny you should mention that, I just pulled one apart an hour ago. First time I noticed them too. I figured much the same; an attempt to direct air towards the runners rather then letting it all gush straight to number 6. I would have thought they would need to be abit longer (protrude in more) to have enough of a difference.

exactly the reason why they have done it. there are some cad simulation programs results which show this would be beneficial.

as for all the air being directed to no6....this is not necessarily true considering cylinders fire at different times and the air is used only when valves are open. you will find that the rear cylinders, 5 & 6, of the gtr plenum actually flows less than the 1 & 2.

Oh good. The reason why i asked is becasue sometimes people just ask it because they think its fancy and have read it somewhere else....and I also wanted to see who could do it for me so I could compare it to flowbench figures...unfortunately your in QLD.

So that would answer your questions, no I don't but would like to find somene local who could do it for me and show me how its done...so if there is anyone out there who can, please pm me.

Interesting about the flow. I thought the major belief was that 5 and 6 flowed abit more (or atleast received air first and more of it) and so always ran a fraction leaner as a result, hence why alot of tuning shops richen 6 up by 1.5% and 5 by 1% or something like that.

Funnily enough I thought all forward facing plenums were susceptible to that problem by that same reasoning.

Did you test this by egts on each exhaust runner with matched injectors? or some kind of flow test on the manifold itself?

that is far from the truth!!!! another one of those internet created misconceptions....and there are plenty more out there

this was tested on a flow bench....EGT testing is coming with the test car

as for rb20 info, watch this space when i get some time after the rb25 testing

i actually need someone to draw them up for me to do the cfd

from reports cfd results are actually very similar to flow test results when the same environment is used, meaning real world vs what is simulated

Edited by ISL33P

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

    • Ok i will get those 310mm. I found one but on a different site. This is the description on those...is it ok? Technical parameters: - Axle: front. - Disc type: ventilated. - Number of holes: 5. - Disc diameter: 310mm. - Total height with center: 54mm. - Thickness (new/min.): 30/28mm. - Designed for brake calipers manufacturer: Sumitomo.
    • You Gregged a whole racetrack!?
    • Look for broken wire or bad connector at the motor. Might not be it, but is worth starting there, as it is easy.
    • Hi everyone, I’m having an issue with my R32 GT-R. Sometimes, when the car goes over a bump or experiences some vibration, the 4WD warning light comes on the dashboard. When I check the code from the control unit in the trunk, it shows Code 19 – ETS Motor. However, everything seems to be working fine — if I turn off the engine and restart the car, the light goes away and everything functions normally. Has anyone experienced this before? Where should I start troubleshooting this issue? Thanks in advance!
    • I'm back from the dyno - again! I went looking for someone who knew LS's and had a roller dyno, to see how it shaped up compared to everything else and confirm the powerband really is peaking where Mr Mamo says it should. TLDR: The dyno result I got this time definitely had the shape of how it feels on the road and finally 'makes sense'. Also we had a bit more time to play with timing on the dyno, it turns out the common practice in LS is to lower the timing around peak torque and restore it to max after. So given a car was on the dyno and mostly dialled in already, it was time for tweaking. Luis at APS is definitely knowledgable when it came to this and had overlays ready to go and was happy to share. If you map out your cylinder airmass you start seeing graphs that look a LOT like the engine's torque curve. The good thing also is if you map out your timing curve when you're avoiding knock... this curve very much looks like the inverse of the airmass curve. The result? Well it's another 10.7kw/14hp kw from where I drove it in at. Pretty much everywhere, too. As to how much this car actually makes in Hub Dyno numbers, American Dyno numbers, or Mainline dyno numbers, I say I don't know and it's gone up ~25kw since I started tinkering lol. It IS interesting how the shorter ratio gears I have aren't scaled right on this dyno - 6840RPM is 199KMH, not 175KMH. I have also seen other printouts here with cars with less mods at much higher "kmh" for their RPM due Commodores having 3.45's or longer (!) rear diff ratios maxing out 4th gear which is the 1:1 gear on the T56. Does this matter? No, not really. The real answer is go to the strip and see what it traps, but: I guess I should have gone last Sunday...
×
×
  • Create New...