Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Is there any cons to not having a heat shield over your turbo on a R33 Skyline? as I am thinking of leaving it off...

My cousin runs his without it, doesn't seem to have any problems. Just be careful there isn't any obstructing items/bits around the exhaust side of the turbo though, you don't want anything to burn.

The other small nuisance is everything around the turbo gets a lot hotter - when we were working under the bonnet (particularly on that side of the engine) after taking the car for a test drive, we'd just have to wait for things to cool down.

Basically you will just increase engine bay temperatures, which is a downside. Leave it on if you can.

Or if you really hate the look of it make one yourself that looks better - I did.

can we see the one you made? :)

what material did you use?

I used fairly thick stainless steel to try and isolate the heat. I also made it go down as far as possible down the side of the turbo.

Not the best picture but you get the idea.

post-35676-0-23224200-1302518226_thumb.jpg

That whole engine bay looks awsome!!! good work man!!! and cheers for the heat shield idea, that looks great!

Nice heatshield!

If the car sees hard work (track days, drift, burnouts), you really want to consider leaving the heatshield on or making a baller heatshield like Phil

Mate of mine had his car catch fire under the bonnet due to no heatshield after ripping a burnout at Powercruise.

Also in the drift cars with no shield you can sometimes see issues with the paint on the bonnet over the turbs

i'm thinking, as good as it looks, is stainless good as a heat shield though? doesnt it get crazy hot itself?

what about aluminium?

or this stuff? its very shapeable. ceramic sandwiched between aluminised steel sheets?

P1310006.jpg

Yep that stuff above is a lot better as an insulator.

As regards to aluminium I don't think it would insulate heat any better and may start to melt or burn if fairly thin (from memory aluminium has a much, much lower melting point).

My setup is definetely not the best heatshield you can make, but easily noticable difference of under bonnet temps with it on or off (have had it on and off heaps of times in the past).

Like I said, mine was mainly for looks and to atleast have some sort of shielding in that area.

  • 2 weeks later...

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...