Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Very happy thanks Dale i dont thimk think dynosheet has a torque curve but been thinking bout taking my car up to Jezzy boys dyno just for a direct comparison on 2 dynos and also to get a torque read out

Very stout result Mick. You've got to be pretty chuffed with that. My estimate was well shy of the mark, thought the manifold would have become a problem for flow around 320kW.

+1 for graph with a readable scale (rpm on X axis if possible)

+1 also for a look at the torque curve please.

Awesome, I bet it is.... its actually roughly the area I was hoping to see, basically says that its capable of making as much as a stock RB25 with stock manifolds can. With a decent highmount and plenum I'd say the wee GTX3071R has more to offer, too. Definite win for a stock manifold setup, though :)

...on farking corn fuel :) Gone are the days where people are chasing numbers on 98. Come on Caltex, forget Commodore company cars...the performance enthusiast is a bigger market...get more servos stocking it

+11ty

Only 30hp shy of my T67 on a dyno dynamics dyno and by the looks a fair bit better down low :thumbsup:

Makes me wonder how one of these would go in external gate form >_<

PS. Take a better picture of the graph, I can't see shit down the bottom haha

Argh, who starts a dyno run at 3900rpm haha... Makes the curve look so much better than it actually is!

Probably not as good as I thought it was down low compared with a T67, actually may be a tad on the laggier side.

But in saying that it's a very impressive set up for a low mount standard inlet and exhaust manifold set up

Edited by SimonR32

Seriously? A bigger non ball bearing turbo being less laggier?

Argh, who starts a dyno run at 3900rpm haha... Makes the curve look so much better than it actually is!

Probably not as good as I thought it was down low compared with a T67, actually may be a tad on the laggier side.

But in saying that it's a very impressive set up for a low mount standard inlet and exhaust manifold set up

Argh, who starts a dyno run at 3900rpm haha... Makes the curve look so much better than it actually is!

Probably not as good as I thought it was down low compared with a T67, actually may be a tad on the laggier side.

But in saying that it's a very impressive set up for a low mount standard inlet and exhaust manifold set up

Not taking away from the results for a second. For a bolt in internal gate setup its brilliant and un heard of power and response 5 years ago. But have to say I am a bit disappointed its not making 200rwkws until around 4,300rpm which is only 200rpm better then my RB20 with a TD06-20G on 98. I am really looking for a 330-350rwkws setup that does 200rwkws at 4,000rpm.

I wonder if something like a Full Race manifold, twin gate and GTX3071R on a std RB25 would do over 200rwkws at 4,000rpm?

Ah ok - if that turns out to be the case this it seems the GTX3071R is a bit like the other GTX turbos, as laggy as (or even slightly laggier) than the next size up wheel would be anyway sad.gif At least it flows more, too!

Can't really be compared with a T67 though, with a 6boost manifold and external it would probably improve by a few hundred rpm in spool and gain a few healthy killerwhats.

Fingers crossed the latest fixes and the 25G make you happier!

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...