Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

G'day just in the pocess of rebuilding my rb 26 for my r32 gtr and wondering what sort of power to expect once its done and tuned. mods include

-bored to 86.5mm with forged cp pistons

-eagle rods

-2 Garret 2560 (-5) Turbos

-bosch indy blue 1600cc injectors

-billet fuel rail

-z32 air flow meters

-nizmo fuel pump

-nizmo fuel regulator

-different coil packs not sure though what they are

-os giken cam gears

-n1 oil pump

-3 and half inch exhaust

-blue printed and balanced crank

-standard cams

-acl race bearing

-computer is a apexi power fc with hand controller

all info will be much appreciated and what sort of boost would be expected thanks for everyones input.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/347206-rb26-build-what-power-to-expect/
Share on other sites

Your injectors are way too big for a BP ultimate tune. Switch to 700's or 800's and you'll be able to get it to idle with a sane AFR... but 1600's! Unless your using E85 they are pointless.

And 350awkw would be achievable.

  • Like 1

Please read the 26 dyno results thread. there are plenty of results in there to view.

there is also a 15+ page thread on these turbos.

the norm is 380-400rwkw on pump

420-440rwkw on E85 others have said, those injectors are ridiculously big for PULP. 800cc are fine.

thanks.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • 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...