Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

if a twin plate clutch drives nicely I'd be all for it so I'll have a look at those.

Well i'll agree with UWISSH that Nismo twins are well known for being pretty much as easy as stock clutches - but they're not cheap (around $2K?), and being a twin, they'll probably rattle. My point is, if you dont need to support big horsepower or brutal use, you could go with something cheaper.

NISMO twin plate. Forget singles.

I had a NISMO single, that was ok but the twin was MILES in front. Plus you can launch it so hard. On the shift change it's so positive yet not at all heavy like a twin

That was 262rwkw with both clutches.

Also, no rattle.

NISMO twin plate. Forget singles.

I had a NISMO single, that was ok but the twin was MILES in front. Plus you can launch it so hard. On the shift change it's so positive yet not at all heavy like a twin

That was 262rwkw with both clutches.

Also, no rattle.

Thats my end of year wish!

  • 2 weeks later...

I bought some R34 BB turbos thinking that's all I wanted but now been offered a set of new -5's for a great price.

Unsure if all the effort and cost of fitting the R34 turbos will be worth it.

Should I just go the -5's and only up the boost until the limit of the AFM's/Injectors and see how that goes?

Would that be a nice driveable package if I decided not to go any further?

I have a Series III R33 GTR with just an exhaust and PFC with boost controller fitted.

What would be a good next step to increase power and more importantly response?

Car currently has 292 rwhp

I smashed my clutch foot years ago in a MC accident so I really don't want to have to put in a heavy clutch and spoil the experience.

It's been suggested to upgrade the turbos to R34 ball bearing units and maybe Tomei pon b cams.

I was considering -5 turbos but that would mean injectors and new AFMs as well and may end up needing the dreaded heavy clutch.

This car will do the odd motorsport event but manly be babied on the street where I really enjoy the driveability

Any advice welcome

Advice:

Don't bother with cams, have a think about cam gears however.

A smaller version of the 2860 turbo would suit - either a -7 or a -9. Personally I prefer the -9's but each to their own.

A twin plate clutch with a lightened flywheel is a good idea.

Also check the Nismo AFM's as they will work at higher air flows than stock without the mucking about that the Z32's entail.

I bought some R34 BB turbos thinking that's all I wanted but now been offered a set of new -5's for a great price.

Unsure if all the effort and cost of fitting the R34 turbos will be worth it.

Should I just go the -5's and only up the boost until the limit of the AFM's/Injectors and see how that goes?

Would that be a nice driveable package if I decided not to go any further?

If you decided not to go any further it would be a poor package imo. You bolt on large turbos -5 turbos and then limit them to 280rwkw, so you get more lag and the same top end so no advantage.

I would only get the -5s if you plan to change the AFM and injectors one day. Until then it will be far less than perfect.

-9s are what your after, they would be good with the stock AFM and injectors but will also reap big rewards if you do change them.

If you dont have plans to change the AFM and injectors, and dont care about the reliability of ceramic wheels (from the fact you want to buy R34 BB turbos) then just get some cam gears, catback exhaust and a tune. You should get ~250rwkw out of that and leave it.

I can get the -5's for $2000 the pair.

Not sure if I would go any further but you never know what will happen if the power bug bites (again)

Currently I have dump pipes back exhaust and PFC tuned to 13psi.

I'm getting 296hp to the wheels and the tuner said with the R34 BB Ceramic turbos and the new dump pipes I'd get only say 330hp which doesn't seem worth the effort now.

Just confused myself :blush:

BAHAHA to going to the drags an NOT doin an 8000rpm clutch drop, done proabably bout a dozen of them at willow bank an neva had clutch problems with 275 tyres, i've neva changed the clutch myself but got a felling it may havebeen changed before it was imported.

Edited by Country Cruzin

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...