Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I think what Ash is trying to say is: 550rwhp is way to much grunt for the S14 chassis already and combine that with an inexpirenced drive on the track.

I tend to agree, you will be faster to begin with with 400rwhp or less and learn the finer points of going quick on a circuit.

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a fair point, and I appreciate the concern and suggestion for track purposes. Let's hope I'm a better driver than you're giving me credit for, considering I started out on karts at age 5. =D

*edit*

Talk to me a little bit about the factory redline on the RB25DET, what it can be safely increased to without modifications, and the steps required to increase it beyond that? Is increasing the redline required for more power on the engine or should I be seeing my max power more in the 6400 RPM range like the stock setup? I'm obviously seeing my max power at the redline currently, but I think that's because of the turbo compressor map not being ideal for the engine. I suppose the engine flows about 50 at 7500rpm?

Edited by radianation

Also, back to the possible issue of valve float, if you watch in this video, right about the time where the dip is in the power on my dyno chart you see a puff of black smoke from the exhaust. Any clue?

Black puff out the exhaust could be ping causing the carbon to be cleaned off the combustion chamber and coming out the exhaust :(

I am sure if the guy is fine with the car at 420whp, he's got the peddling to deal with a high power S14 and has an idea of what the chassis copes with a bit of power like.

For the higher power level you are after I'd have thought bigger cams etc would be a good idea too.

honestly i agree with the 3076 idea...

run e85 and you can see ~350rwkw with brilliant response

i run an HKS 2835 pro s and on e85 i see 323rwkw (432rwhp) with 20psi by 3400

the on/off throttle response is blistering for a 2.5 litre and a 3076 with a good manifold on sugarcubes should see you to ~470rwhp with similar response

ima post my dyno graph to show the difference between 98 and e85.

this is the same tuner, same car, same dyno, same day, different fuel:

med_gallery_36777_3194_124976.jpg

with the 3076 setup you'd end up with something similar to this response wise but with more power

I could always take that in steps. If the power isn't there on pump gas after the turbo swap I just change fuel... Or do you think I should change fuel now and see how the current turbo does?

I had a friend consult Garrett Marketing/Engineers directly and here is their suggestion / response:

So, we made some assumptions about the engine.

It is running an air-to-air intercooler.

4 valves/cylinder for .9 volumetric efficiency

It will be using pump gas (though I did try the match with a few different A/F ratios)

It will be used near Louisville with an average barometric pressure of 14.37 and an average temp of 55* F

Actual crank horsepower is approximately 675 accounting for a 20% drivetrain loss to give the 550 RWHP target

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) of 0.46

From what we can see, a 2.5L will have a difficult time making 675 HP at 20 psi without running really rich (I got it there at 9.2:1). However, a more sober 10.5:1 A/F ratio delivers the power at a pressure ratio of 2.8, or 25 psi gauge. This will give the target 675 crank HP at 7500 RPM. Intake manifold temps should hover around 129*, and torque should be 473 lb/ft.

Now, which turbo? Both of the choices Andrew listed would work. The GT3582R will make the power, but the bigger wheels are going to make it a little laggier. Plus, I don’t feel like the added volume is totally necessary given that it is a 2.5L and back pressure shouldn’t be an issue. My choice would be the GTX3076R, not only because it is the hawtness right now, but also because it will be faster reacting and will still deliver the power at ~73-75% efficiency. You’ll be closer to the choke flow line of the map, so the real power will be right smack dab in the heart of the map where you want it. Also, there are three A/R’s for turbine housing sizing. I’m feeling like the larger 1.06 might be the best way to go, but it is kind of guess and check with the turbine housing A/R sizing. The only caution I would have in using the GTX3076R is to watch for surge. I don’t think that it will happen, but there is a better chance of it occurring with this turbo than the GT3582R.

I think I'm going to go with the GTX3076R per the recommendations both on this forum and from the manufacturer. However, I'm not sure which A/R at this point.

Stop have a look at the airwerx series by borgwarner first

The s200sx is like the 3076 but the extended tip allows it to spool sooner.

Its also not ball bearing so you can rebuild it if you need to

Stop have a look at the airwerx series by borgwarner first

The s200sx is like the 3076 but the extended tip allows it to spool sooner.

Its also not ball bearing so you can rebuild it if you need to

If I wan gonna get a BW, It'd be the newer EFR series 4 sure.

Later they added this comment, which is more inline with what I was thinking...

Two small notes about the turbo, one change and one advise.

Rather than the 1.06 A/R, I’ve looked at back pressure numbers and a 0.82 A/R would be fine and get into boost between 500-1000 rpm sooner. A little back pressure isn’t necessarily a bad thing for track and autocross either.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...