Jump to content
SAU Community

Stock R34 Airbox Power Limits

simons987
 Share

Recommended Posts

simons987 Explorer

simons987

Posted
Posted

Hi Guys,

I have briefly searched the forum to try and find out the limits of a stock r34 gtt Airbox. I remember R31Nismoid mentioning he can get over 300awkw out of his r33 GTR with his stock airbox. I'm currently in the process building my 34 with a GTX3076R and Tomei Cams 260. Trying to keep the car stock looking as possible but obtaining that 300rwkw. Can anyone provide any insight if the airbox can handle 300rwkw with a decent filter.

There is also a thread I have been trying to look for!!! It is a DIY making your own snorkal. I saw it once and can not find it again. If someone can kindly post that link up for me would be much appreciated :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/366144-stock-r34-airbox-power-limits/
Share on other sites
R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

GTR and GT-t not quite the same dude far as I am aware.

I'm not up with GT-t airboxes, but do they have the side feed from the guard like GTRs? (GTR items will do well over 300rwkw)

There are a few guys on 280rwkw with stock R33 GTS-t airboxes so your GT-t airbox in theory should be ok.

Some have made over 300 but i believe that wasn't on PUMP fuel, E85 was used.

Guess it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually try and do some back to back

simons987 Explorer

simons987

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thanks R31Nismoid for the quick post,

It has got the snorkal setup coming from the nose, comparing my mates R33 GTR Airbox to my stock box the GTR is around 20% larger.

Once I finish the car and take it to the dyno I will post up my results.

Edited by simons987
Harey Veteran

Harey

Posted
Posted

With the R34 GTT and R33 GTS-T's you need to replace the rubber hose between the airbox and the front of the turbo. This will suck shut over around 230rwkw and limit power greatly. With a metal custom pipe the factory airbox is not a bad thing, I know of people making 250rwkw on 98 fuel and 280rwkw on E85 with a stock airbox but metal pipe. The only problem is that the metal pipe has to custom and is quite a tricky angle. Because it is a fixed airbox it has to fit in the right spot at the right angle. Its different to a pod as obviously it can sit anywhere.

Another guy on here has the top half of an airbox and snorkel and a pod sitting underneath it.

Are you looking at it from a looking standard for cops point of view or dont care? I would only go to the effort if your worried about cops. Otherwise I think its a lot of effort. I have heard of people saying 10rwkw loss around 280rwkw but dont have proof.

W0rp3D Grand Master

W0rp3D

Posted
Posted

when mine was on the dyno for comparison sake it made 251 with the box and the mod i did (see below) and then made 256 with no lid on at all.

another mod that ppl do is to drill a hole in the bottom of the airbox and run a pipe down through the vacant cooler pipe hole (assuming you have your return pipe over the radiator) with a pod on the end of it.

The general figure i hear is that the standard box max's out at about 250rwkw.

post-27276-0-47631200-1306836533_thumb.jpeg

simons987 Explorer

simons987

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the feedback guys

That rubber pipe did my head in lol on my old turbo setup I ran into that problem. After I replaced the pipe I didnt have any problems. Pipe bending and fabrications work isn't a problem. I have all the gear at home for fab work.

Yeh I'm in a really bad area sunshine. Theres a blitz that goes on once a week at least around the area. Having a stock stealth looking setup will improve my chances for not getting done. :)

Wow only a 6kw gain when removing the pod, that kind of information brings my confidents up I won't get any choking when doing the dyno.

I am thinking about customizing the airbox in either 1 of 2 ways

1. The top part of the filter where the snorkal is located, the piece the snorkal fits into I will cut that out and customize it to take up the whole left section of the box. Then I will create a custom Snorkal to suck up all the air from the nose.

2. The old intercooler hole on the far right side I will run a pipe going up into a custom bottom end of the airbox. I will then install a pod inside the box and have both snorkal and piping at the bottom bringing in air.

I'm more inclined doing the first as it requires less customizing to the box. With an oil based airfilter the CFM of air shouldn't be a problem.

Edited by simons987
  • 2 years later...
Chris32 Veteran

Chris32

Posted
Posted

Thought I'd dig this up and see what the outcome was.

I'm finding the big differance compared the the GTR airbox is that the snorkel on the GTT feeds the top half of the airbox, while the GTR feeds the lower half - making it way easier to open up the GTR airbox and get it flowing better.

Any airbox mod to the GTT has to be done to the top half, which will look a bit more obvious / possibly not work as well.

Looking at my airbox, the inlet is tucked right into the corner, with lots of plastic ribs close to the location of the airflow meter. Anyhow, if you guys had any decent results with the stock box I'd be keen to hear

34GeeTeeTee Grand Master

34GeeTeeTee

Posted
Posted

Thought I'd dig this up and see what the outcome was.

I'm finding the big differance compared the the GTR airbox is that the snorkel on the GTT feeds the top half of the airbox, while the GTR feeds the lower half - making it way easier to open up the GTR airbox and get it flowing better.

Any airbox mod to the GTT has to be done to the top half, which will look a bit more obvious / possibly not work as well.

Looking at my airbox, the inlet is tucked right into the corner, with lots of plastic ribs close to the location of the airflow meter. Anyhow, if you guys had any decent results with the stock box I'd be keen to hear

You are probably best just to ditch it and run an alloy box like i have, really depends what turbo and piping you have to deal with as to how much hassle it will all be?

Chris32 Veteran

Chris32

Posted
Posted

You are probably best just to ditch it and run an alloy box like i have, really depends what turbo and piping you have to deal with as to how much hassle it will all be?

Yeah I'll have to check out your build thread! You pop up allot when it comes to GTT mods :D

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • GTSBoy
      DeAgostini 1/8 scale BNR32 Nissan Skyline GT-R Nismo

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      That's hilariously putrid!
    • GTSBoy
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...