Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys,

a little bit of back ground about the car, i've been chasing 400kw out of my -5 E85 powered GTR

had issues with not making the numbers on higher boosts. so i've been making some small changes to see what the problem was. firstly i changed the exhaust from a 3in cat back to 4in and it made a 10kw difference. so then i change the cams from std to tomei type B's and this is what has happened:

i had type B tomei poncams installed. with no cam gears. so cam timing is zero.

i dynoe'd the car on std cams on 25psi and it ran 360rwkw

put the cams in and had the tuner play around with the tune to get it right on the low boost (20psi) and it made 360rwkw. i thought WIN!! same power, more response and 5psi less boost. then once we were happy with the 20 psi pulling consistently between 360-365rwkw we went to high boost setting of 25psi.

and a whopping big 365rwkw. it varied between 365-370rwkw on 25psi

so in reality 5 extra psi made no difference. the low boost is great, holds boost well, and pulls right to redline.

but 25psi is bad, the boost waves around a little and it seems like it just wont flow? the tuner seems to suspect that its got something to do with the std manifolds not flowwing enough.

its a big job to change over the maifolds, i was thinking if i did that i'd change the dumps to 3in too.

i've also had the system smoke tested and pressure tested to rule out any boost leaks,

just to give a recap of mods here they are:

forged pistons

std rods

R33 GTR crank

260 degree 9.15mm lift cams

-5 turbo's

mines dump pipes (look to be 60 or 65mm)

2.75 in front pipe into 4in cat back

std manifolds

silicone intercooler hoses

ARC 70mm intercooler

K&N air filter in STD airbox

1000cc injectors (siemens)

nismo AFM's

nistune ECU

twin in tank pumps

E85

e boost street boost controller

we've tried opening up the airbox, we jammed a screwdriver to open it up and that made no difference

the ECU and tuning ware responds to changes so it isn't the software, or electronics

he said that it doesnt look like the hoses are sucking closed because you can see the power just cut off when it does that and it doesnt do that. the power just follows the same curve doesnt matter whether its on 20psi or 25psi

the intake temps weren't rising too greatly, so the intercooler is doing its job.

the tuner tends to think that it's more of a mechanical thing like there being back pressure in the manifolds or dumps & turbo's which isnt allowing the air to be pushed out the engine and is just raising the boost because there is resistence in pushing boost into the motor?

please help, if anyone has any idea's as to what it could be or experience of similar results?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/393966-same-power-different-boost/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

post me a pic of the dyno graph.. power vs afr, also a boost one if possible.

what he said lol.

If you're going to get answers, then he's your man.

I'll help as much as I can too.

Sounds like you have really opened up the breathing in one spot to create a restriction in another. Sine the restriction is in another spot, you'll get different symptoms.

Personally I think that when there is a restriction in the head (Cams, valves, general flow) then you just have an entire up or down on the power.

If you have restrictions on exhaust manifolds, turbos, etc, you start to get weird symptoms, like unstable boost, interupted flow, etc. Its hard to explain in a few lines.

there is no cat on the car

i think the front pipe is 2.75 from each turbo then merges to 4in and its 4in from there all the way back.

the manifolds weren't port matched.

the manifolds havent been modified in any way.

Just thinking about this today - You have removed a large restriction in the head by adding larger better breathing cams, and moved the restriction elsewhere, or to the next restriction.

Just remember, there is less restriction allowing more flow, which means more power with less boost. Make sense? Just because the boost is lower, it doesn't mean there isnt more gas passing from Air filter, to exhaust tip.

Edited by The Mafia

Were the standard manifolds port matched to the turbos? Usually it's recommended to keep the lip (for response) with -7's and -9's but to remove that lip for 350kw+

That would have to be one of the dumbest things I have heard... recommended by who, a bunch of internet users, crazy!

Just thinking about this today - You have removed a large restriction in the head by adding larger better breathing cams, and moved the restriction elsewhere, or to the next restriction.

Just remember, there is less restriction allowing more flow, which means more power with less boost. Make sense? Just because the boost is lower, it doesn't mean there is more gas passing from Air filter, to exhaust tip.

so what you're suggesting is that because the cams allow more flow through the head = less pressure/resistence in the plennum for the same volume of air?

so that might explain why its making 360kw on 20psi (with cams) instead of 25psi (without cams)? same volume of air passing through the motor, just less resistence in the plennum?

and if the intake isnt sucking closed or causing a restriction before the turbo, then the restriction might be after the turbo? maybe intercooler? (but its a 70mm ARC cooler so it should flow pretty well) and there were no signs of intake temps spiking higher on 25psi.

there shouldnt be a restriction in the head, because its obviously allowing more flow, because its pushing 360kw @ 20psi whereas before it needed 25psi to get 360kw.

-5's should in theory be fine to flow 25psi with everything else allowing them to flow that much?

so the flow is either getting choked at the manifolds pre turbo? or its getting choked after turbo (dumps)

unless anyone else can shine any light as to why i'm not getting any real gain from an added 5psi?

the extra 5psi wouldnt be enough to cause valve float would it? and would valve float cause the symtoms i have?

I'm in my iPhone now but will explain the best I can.

The head was never a major restriction, but when you think about it, everything is a restriction.

At this point though, your head was the biggest restriction, and now that it flows better, you don't need to ram (boost) more air pressure into it. It just flows better.

So, the air is flowing through the head with less resistance now, hence why you can make the same power on less boost. The air is passing through the head easier and more of it.

Anyway, at 25psi, there is even more volume of air trying to get through now. But, since the head is allowing it, something else has to be holding it up.

Lol this is always hard to explain.

Find out what max of the exhaust manifolds is rumored to be, same with the intake manifold, same with your intercooler, and find the now new weakest link.

Edited by The Mafia

I am starting to think that the issue is the turbo's.

Don't matter if it was ok on 25psi before, fact is that your turbo's were out of puff before on 25psi, and when you free'd up the engine a little the turbo's are out of puff on 20psi and still making the same power because its flowing its maximum amount of air.

remember boost is your mortal enemy, the less boost you run the better.

Don't compare your -5 results to other peoples, different cars, different engines, different elevaion, different dyno's... etc etc so please don't tell me (ohhh but it should be making X amount of HP) this is tuning not maths.

An engine is a big air pump, the more air that goes in and out the more power you will make, so you had your turbos running at its max air flow and instead of upgrading them you just made it easier for them to flow the same amount of air at a lesser boost pressure, which is a mod done well if you ask me!

If you want to move forward in power then upgrade those turbo's. Grab a big single T51r or something and then start pumping some serious air into the engine or leave it how it is and be happy with what you got.

Could just be me. But I'd be pretty happy with 360 at the wheels from a relatively 'simple' build. Short of messing round with port matching manifolds or spending heaps on porting the head . Spend the money else where and enjoy the car brezza

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...