Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

Just curious on a little issue. I'm looking to get more response out of my rb25, i've been playing around with the idea of putting in a light weight flywheel. I've heard that you can get some pretty good results from it but i'm still in need of a bit of convincing. Someone with experience with this drive train modification please enlighten this :newbie:

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/39519-engine-response/
Share on other sites

I don't have any expereince with it, but i'm planning to put a light weight flywheel in when i do my clutch next, it should give it that little bit more response/rev a little quicker...

anything you can do to lighten up the drivetrain has got to be good for responsivness

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/39519-engine-response/#findComment-802480
Share on other sites

a lightened flywheel will help improve pick up response, but be aware that it will also cause the revs to drop more during gear changes...

Dave has a good point here - if it'll rev faster, it'll DE-rev faster too... i guess it depends on how you want to drive it. IMHO, i would have thought that for dragging, maintaining revs would have been more important than quick throottle response ? don't quote me on that though...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/39519-engine-response/#findComment-802494
Share on other sites

Lightened flywheel, lightened wheels, lightened tail shaft, lightened pulleys are all good.

But you can also lighten your car - rip up the carpet and remove all the sound deadening, remove the boot trim and the spare wheel, remove the rear seats.

Not only will you increase responsiveness, as the car gets lighter, it brakes and corners better too. If you can remove 70-80kg - that have as much difference as between when you have a passenger in the car and when you drive alone - every bit helps.

If you have management, get it tuned with AF ratios around 11:1 and add more timing - this too will increase responsiveness. Its how one of Signal's D1 drivers suggested I should tune my car to increase responsiveness. He also suggested that running a base fuel pressure of 3kg (instead of stock 2.5) would help, with the right tune, to increase response further.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/39519-engine-response/#findComment-802499
Share on other sites

mmm thanks all.. has given me a little food for thought.... more comments please:D

yeh the flywheel and a light alloy pully system should be good... what i want to do with the car is just make it a little more responsive....... not jack the boost up and make it go nuts.... just enhance whats already there. Sorta like trying to play with the car in a little different manner. :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/39519-engine-response/#findComment-803124
Share on other sites

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...