Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So yeah...I need to give my answer to my machinist tomorrow morning so I searched around and couldn't find any REAL WORLD info. only some flow bench result and such. so Have anyone seen true before and after dyno graph? to which point is porting worth it? for 1000$ what will I gain?

I only know 2 persons who did porting on their head and it's gtr-dad and mitch32. I spoke with Mitch32 he went straight to porting so he never had a before dyno graph, don't know for gtr-dad.

My machinist swear by porting but I mean.. that's his job, he won,t tell me it's worthless LOL.

I'm sure it's a nice mods but is the head of a RB26 already maxing at 500whp ? isn't more something you do when your at 650+ ?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/369363-porting-rb26-head-on-500whp-setup/
Share on other sites

Most heads have a minor tidy up. Seems to be all you need really.

You still going Garrett -9s? If so its a tough ask to be able to say it's worth it dropping 1k on porting.

You'd benefit more IMO from spending the money on just a solid reco on the head so that it's all in fresh order and won't give you issues later, is reliable and set for many years.

I looked at this in a fair bit of detail when I was building my rb26/30.

My findings (which were reflected in my build) were:

-It is possible that cleaning up the heads - especially the exhaust ports - may help. Some advocated removing the "humps" in the exhaust ports (look at the head, you'll see what I mean).

-However, the vast majority of people I spoke to advised against actually changing the shape of the chambers or runners, preferring velocity to outright flow capacity.

-In my view the tolerances on the head are pretty good in terms of port matching, but you can get a better match by using the gasket and light work on the head, and also the plenum connector and the exhaust manifold.

-In terms of paying money for someone to actually shape the ports, I was advised that it would be preferable to spend the dollars on oversized valves (assuming the cams and cam train is being done anyway).

In any event, I ended up finding a new head that was being sold from an abandoned build, which had 272/10.5mm cams and springs, buckets etc together with a cleaned up head and standard, re-ground valves (new ones where required).

In the end, it flowed enough for 380rwkw, which is slightly more than 500 hp. And being only "cleaned up" rather than ported as such, it doesn't induce lag or anything.

In summary, I'd say don't take the risk with porting for a 500hp setup, unless you are super confident the guy can improve over the factory head (I'd be wanting dyno graphs etc).

yeah it can be a bit hit and miss. my advise with messing with heads is less is more.... especially if you don't really know what you are doing.

on a 26 head from my experience.

no need to go overboard enlarging inlet or exhaust ports. you want velocity. but some work is good.

be careful what you do with the squish pads. altering them drastically changes engine behaviour.

there are very good gains to be had in the short turn radius, again provided you know what you are doing.

CC'ing the chambers so they are equal is also of benefit as is removing casting marks, dags etc that can cause hot spots.

exhaust hump removal is a tricky one. it's there because of the hump created in the water jacket by the exhaust studs. removing too much means a very thin wall left...

Im running -9s comfortably at 450awhp

Yeah I'm not saying you can't make more than 400hp at the wheels with that turbo but if you're going to tell me your RB26 is standard bore and stroke, runs on 98 and under 22psi of boost, then I would say you are wrong. You can, however, make 450rwhp UNCOMFORTABLY if you want to pump in 30psi of boost and water meth injection or 30% meth or E85 etc.

-9's are smaller than -7's and you can only ever expect 400rwhp out of -7's. Sure a little more can be had but usually that will be related to the fuel being used.

-9s are bigger than -7s Dan.

-7s are the same size as R34 N1.

-9s are GT-SS equiv, larger than R34 N1 :)

Incorrect

The 707160-7 has a 44.5mm inducer and 60mm exducer on the comp and the same 53.9mm turbine that all the 2860R turbo's share

The 707160-9 has a 44.5mm inducer but only a 59.4mm exducer on the comp wheel.....smaller :(

Ye i know the exd is slightly smaller... but...

-7 is a 55 trim

-9 is a 56 trim

Slight difference, higher trim = more flow.

Garrett even make note on their website that the -7 is a N1 OEM Replacement.

I've never seen -7s make more tha 300-310rwkw, where every -9/GT-SS car makes just that bit more 310-330rwkw on average.

Ye i know the exd is slightly smaller... but...

-7 is a 55 trim

-9 is a 56 trim

Slight difference, higher trim = more flow.

Garrett even make note on their website that the -7 is a N1 OEM Replacement.

I've never seen -7s make more tha 300-310rwkw, where every -9 car makes just that bit more 310-330rwkw on average.

Yeah you're right, the higher trim will have a higher flow. I just can't see 450awhp comfortably....neck ringing yes maybe......DEFINITELY NOT a 500hp setup

Either way it really is a poofteenth. The -7 is slightly more responsive too

Its funny too cause the maps garrett supplied are so different it doesnt even seen logical.

Max flow is around 22psi for both turbo's @ around 31 lh/min the difference is the -9's are slightly more efficient.

Few things can be done to the head for your power output.

- Leave the squish area as is.

- Clean up inlet ports with 80grit, and knife edge the splitter. (remeber just to clean up and not take away mass amounts of metal).

- Smooth out pockets inlets/exhaust (you will feel a sharp edge that pretty much extends around the whole valve seat)

- Remove the exhaust bumps and polish exhaust ports.

The main key here is to not take away too much material, and just clean up the ports.

I ended up doing this to my build myself as this was requested to be done by my tuner, purchased a head porting kit and went away with it with guidence from my tuner. Running -5's on a forged rb26. Tunner says it will crack the 500hp mark no problemo's but we will see.

Max flow is around 22psi for both turbo's @ around 31 lh/min the difference is the -9's are slightly more efficient.

Sorry for the hijack, but does that mean that anything over 22psi will just add heat and therefore there's never any reason to run more than 22?

Also, is there diminishing returns just before 22, so while 18->20 might give you a decent increase, 20->22 will give you much less?

Im running 17psi on -7s, and wondering how much further its worth pushing them.

Sorry for the hijack, but does that mean that anything over 22psi will just add heat and therefore there's never any reason to run more than 22?

Also, is there diminishing returns just before 22, so while 18->20 might give you a decent increase, 20->22 will give you much less?

Im running 17psi on -7s, and wondering how much further its worth pushing them.

ACtually in reading the compressor map the -7's have no more to give over 20psi of boost. But it will also depend a little on setup.

Edited by rob82

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...