Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So the short answer is that MAF provides you with a more stable tune. Less variation due to subtle changes in air temp and atmospheric pressures. I'm probably switching back to a 4" MAF and a ford lightning sensor with my next setup for that exact reason.

That is unless your going to be doing something radical that uses MAF and MAP...

Tuning with MAF gives the car a more accurate tune and response is a lot better.

Yes I will be running MAF and MAP and the MAF will help make table for MAP . Using a Motec you can almost do anything .

Don't go to big of a MAF as idle will be an issue .

On a another note we tuned a 6466 turbo it made 600kws on 35psi very impressed with that turbo

Was that 6466 result on a 2.6 Bobby? My goal is to make 500kw atw with the new setup, but I'd like to do it easy, perhaps around 22-25psi should be possible with my displacement and head setup.

What size and configuration turbine did you use too?

Edited by GTRNUR

Was that 6466 result on a 2.6 Bobby? My goal is to make 500kw atw with the new setup, but I'd like to do it easy, perhaps around 22-25psi should be possible with my displacement and head setup.

What size and configuration turbine did you use too?

It was on a 2.6l .

The turbo was a customers choice exducer was only 86mm .

You will need some boost to make it all happen .

Hey Bobby love the build! Enjoyed following it all this time.

Any reason you didnt use vcam? Wouldnt it help more in achieving your goal?

Yes a v cam would help the response however at the time of the build 6 years ago it was not considered . However the design is setup on a way that it will respond like v cam .

Tuning with MAF gives the car a more accurate tune and response is a lot better.

Yes I will be running MAF and MAP and the MAF will help make table for MAP . Using a Motec you can almost do anything .

Don't go to big of a MAF as idle will be an issue .

On a another note we tuned a 6466 turbo it made 600kws on 35psi very impressed with that turbo

Anymore info on the 2.6 with the 6466? Comp ratio? Headwork?

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

500kws power does not state how fast a car is . As these powers are peak out put . More important is how quick it gets there

Are you still using a 72mm Turbonetics turbo to do it? I agree with "500kw doesn't state how fast a car is" sentiment, but the brand "Turbonetics" and 72mm each spell "lag" to me - ie, not exactly the quickest 500kw you could get :unsure:

Otherwise, amazing build!! Look forward to seeing how this comes out

  • Like 1

Are you still using a 72mm Turbonetics turbo to do it? I agree with "500kw doesn't state how fast a car is" sentiment, but the brand "Turbonetics" and 72mm each spell "lag" to me - ie, not exactly the quickest 500kw you could get :unsure:

Otherwise, amazing build!! Look forward to seeing how this comes out

"T70 not T72 entry hole 68mm of the turbo". NO LAG well not as much as any other car that has a turbo this size. It seems you know the formula for a quick 500kw??? please tell me.

Thank you

"T70 not T72 entry hole 68mm of the turbo". NO LAG well not as much as any other car that has a turbo this size. It seems you know the formula for a quick 500kw??? please tell me.

I'll re-iterate, I am blown away with the whole build - I didn't mean to offend, and certainly don't mean to say I could do it better... at least when it comes to the engine build, fabrication etc. I've never built an RB to make that power (on that note are you going to be running E85?) so far bit it from me to question anything there. The only thing which did make me raise an eyebrow was the T70 based turbo, and hence me asking as I figured you'd either say "wink wink nudge nudge" implying that its hardly an off the shelf T70 if not say what has been done there... because otherwise it is just using an old Turbonetics turbo on what is otherwise an amazing build, and when the turbo has in ways the biggest influence on how the engine is going to be able to perform given most of the good stuff will be relying on the turbocharger to provide extra air mass in a timely fashion.
The reason I say that is I've experienced first hand an RB30 Skyline running a Turbonetics T70 and the thing was horrible in spool and response considering it had a 3litre engine, by comparison I've also experienced a GTR with a T04Z on an RB30DET making similar power to the T70 car and due to expectations of what a 3litre 450+awkw GTR being set by the Turbonetics one I nearly shat myself when the T04Z tried to rip tarmac up at rpm where the T70 one felt like it had just realised it had a turbo and was sheepishly asking it whether it could give it some decent boost at some point, please. The ride in the T70 Skyline was my first experience of an RB30 and I actually didn't think too much of their advantage over a 2.6 for some time because of the experience, so discovering that it was actually nothing to do with the engine so much as the air pump hobbling it... and that is one of the reasons I decided I *really* get my teeth into trying to understand dynamics between engines and the things attached to them as while that was an extreme case, it does show that the turbo can make an otherwise crap setup awesome and an awesome setup crap.
So if you're going to take that line, a formula for a quicker 500kw car is do exactly what you are doing - but put a better turbo on it, because unless there is some very sneaky stuff you have done to the Turbonetics turbo which essentially would mean calling it a Turbonetics T70 would be very misleading and I'd really have no idea of it's potential... then I would be completely surprised to see a result which no other turbo could match on your setup. I like surprises, as it means there is more for me to learn and more ways to go fast - and I love seeing good results, which is the only reason I questioned it.
Looking forward to seeing how it goes, anyway :)

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...