Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice times. Did you do any runs without NOS?

Not last night mate. I'm waiting for the time when i run out half track and spew fuel out the back :) Best run without gas was 13.471 @ 104.56 (2.2 60').

2rismo, what kind of nos setup are you running

It's a butchered kit that i threw together. Mostly NOS. Wet.

coz it defeates the purpose of this thread title about the fastest time with stock turbo i recon.

If you read the first post it will all become clear.... Jeez, some people.... You just miss the point completely...!!!!!

Anyway good effort, u must be running atleast a 100hp shot of nos

Wrong.

Adrian

IMHO I think the reason you're getting a bit of flack is due to the thread title itself, it contains no reference to nitrous assistance. Whack a 'nitrous assisted' in the thread title to make it clear perhaps?

Some people may read the thread title and skim through the posts and think your full of shite as your comparing stock turbo + nitrous vs. stock turbo no nitrous. It's a bit of an "apples vs. oranges" situation.

The question was:

What is the quickest ET / MPH that an R32/R33/R34 GTS-T/GTT has run with the std turbo intact and untouched?
IMHO I think the reason you're getting a bit of flack is due to the thread title itself, it contains no reference to nitrous assistance. Whack a 'nitrous assisted' in the thread title to make it clear perhaps?

It doesn't need to, the question was 'stock turbo'. Adrian is using a stock turbo so where is the problem?

I'm personally not a huge fan of Nitrous simply because I want my car to be able to do the same on the street as it does on the track but hell a full 1 second gain just from adding 50hp of NOS is something i'd highly enjoy doing even if it is just for that 12.5sec every Wed nite.

Everybody:

If you read the first paragraph of the first post it will ALL BECOME CLEAR!!!

It is in English, isn't it? Look. I have been researching the whole nitrous oxide use thing for years now. Along the way, I have come across NUMEROUS suggestions that it is 'better' or 'more worthwhile' or 'not cheating, you cheating bastard' to upgrade the turbo on my/any car. What I'm trying to show is that this is that nitrous oxide use IS a valid, effective AND relatively cheap method of making more power and going quicker.

I am not big-noting myself by comparing my 12.5 run or any other runs for that matter with anyone elses. I mean, some people have gone high 12's with no gas!!!

The point is this, I have spent significantly less than what I would have in upgrading the turbo to get similar results. End of story. I hope it is a bit clearer now.

Adrian

Dear oh dear, you guys are taking this faaar too seriously :) Chill out fellas.

I couldn't agree more, nitrous is a great low cost way to make solid hp gains. It's not exactly anything that wasn't already well known. Some people think it's cheating, once again nothing new there either!

I personally think nitrous is a great little addition. However, the cost/hassle of going for a bigger turbo (plus the other upgrades this requires) is worth it for the permanent hp gains achieved. Gains that can be used 24/7.

Edit: From memory Adrian posted $100 for a 10lb bottle refill. Which lasts 200secs at 50hp. That's a lot of 12sec passes!

On a totally different issue, does anyone know what the fine is for using NOS on the street?

I've got a theory thats its cheaper than the fine for running without a Cat....10rwhp vs 100rwhp....

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

    • 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
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...