Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

na man only looking at 1 bar or 250 to 280 is rwkw.

i appreciate what you are saying about the gt30 but it will be maxed out before i reach my goal. of 400rwkw.

So do you want 280rwkw or 400rwkw? Theres a big difference when it comes to setup....

it has a 0.5 to4 front housing and 1.06 rear but i'm gonna change a few things soon to a .7 and .86 rear. John the ultimate goal will be around 400, as my weak points at the moment are the box and clutch which is going to cost around 8k so i'll save that up and get ppg gear set and nismo twin plate. so atm i'm just building it to be able to do what i want too, when i'm going to do it.....if that makes sense.

I take it you are using the factory boost pickup point - ie the nipple at the start of the scroll? If so that point has a higher boost level than manifold pressure. The pressure difference between the two increases logarithmically with airflow rate.

If you change to manifold pressure as a boost source for the actuator you will generate a lot more boost.

^^^^^^doesn't make sense as this is a 3ltr, it also has bigger cams so i'm expecting it's go to drive like a strong na off boost, and beside i've seen gt3540rs on sr20 with plenty of mid range, the turbo was actually designed for 2.5 to 4 ltr engines so being a 3 i'm kinda right in the middle, and if a rb25 will push a gt30 to 300rwkw and have plenty of mid range i can't see why a gt35 on a over sized forged rb30 would do any less justice. the engine is being built to handle a flogging.

You do realise bigger cams are actually going to make it weaker off boost yes?

It's not a high comp N/A motor you are dealing with here.

so in turn it would also read "true" if i where ton read it from the manifold and not the turbo side of things which would allow me to adjust it accodingly for what pressure i want???

You can use either boost source. The reason ford use that pickup point is to allow better control at higher rpm. And by better control I mean better ability to lower boost.

Edited by rob82
  • 1 month later...

right so nismoid i would be better running the factory cams ie rb20 ones as i was only going to use stage one tomei items. Also what is the safest power level and rpm of a standard balancer as i cant find the info.

Not enough for you. I am running a max of 6500 to protect my stock bottom end and N1 pump but if you want to rev high you should get a better balancer.

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 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.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...