Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Piggaz said:

Well, guys get all excited about a billet wheel being lighter.... but most of the weight is in the turbine wheel. The efr wheel is half the weight of a normal inconel wheel.  

Removal of all the small piping and super tight bends of the intake and exhaust. Just look at it all, it's hardly designed for MASS airflow. Put a pressure sensor on the intake of a 450 kw gtr and I bet it's pulling bulk vacuum. Dyson would be impressed.

 

Haha, Piglets rebuild of his busted Dyson :D

34 minutes ago, ActionDan said:

I wonder why BMW went with all the hassle of twins on a straight 6 motor instead of a slightly larger single? 

I guess they wanted to make it laggier. I mean, 1400 rpm is pretty shit response - A single would be on idle for sure. 


 

I bet a cheeseburger that their packaging is not a spitting image of the RB26 configuration.  A huge amount of my argument against low mount twins in a GTR when any kind of flow is needed has to do with the packaging.  

Edited by Lithium
Just now, Lithium said:

I bet a cheeseburger that their packaging is not a spitting image of the RB26 configuration.  A huge amount of my argument against low mount twins in a GTR when any kind of flow is needed has to do with the packaging.  

Yep 100% you can't get a bigger exhaust housing on to those stock manifolds and the rear intake in rubbish.

Would like to see some low mounted EFR's on customer manifolds.

13 minutes ago, Lithium said:

I bet a cheeseburger that their packaging is not a spitting image of the RB26 configuration.  A huge amount of my argument against low mount twins in a GTR when any kind of flow is needed has to do with the packaging.  

"When any kind of flow is needed" means different things to different people. 

I think you guys need to go back and read some of your own posts from 10yrs ago on here and see how you were reacting to 300-350rwkw back in the day.

For those power levels, even today, twins are fine for a mildly driven street car. Does that mean there are not better solutions? Of course not, it's been a decade of tech advancement, but the argument seems to boil down to "did you know that if you spend more time and money you will get a better result?!".

No shit lol







 

Edited by ActionDan
  • Like 1
10 minutes ago, acsplit said:

Yep 100% you can't get a bigger exhaust housing on to those stock manifolds and the rear intake in rubbish.

Would like to see some low mounted EFR's on customer manifolds.

Artec do a 0.85 T28 ass.

4 hours ago, Lithium said:

9180 would do for now :D

Hows that build of yours going?

 

Sick f**king work Piggy, looking forward to seeing the final result - but you're already smashing it. Can't wait for the data, and for you to finally be able to get out there and do awesome shit with it.  I remember the OTP discussion we had back in 2013 where you were challenging me to think of any RB setup with response and power like your own, bet you wouldn't have expected your own car to end up with a single turbo on the exact same engine and as a result stand up harder earlier than it ever did before? :D  

f**king kudos to having the Insight involved to get a great thing even better.

Honorary mention gotta go to the drunken conversations with the Wild the sphincter of the universe Rare Breed.

* This post sponsored by the SAU language filter

Slowly getting there. Wiring was completed last week so a little more fab then it can get some fluids and a tune :)

  • Like 1

I'm curious what spark plug gaps you are running with the Godzilla motorsport kit?

I might need new coilpacks and was thinking this kit over the conventional splitfires.

In the search your the only guy i saw that runs the Godzilla R35 billet coil pack kit, so curious on your opinion on why you went these over spitfires.

9 minutes ago, blah_blah said:

I'm curious what spark plug gaps you are running with the Godzilla motorsport kit?

I might need new coilpacks and was thinking this kit over the conventional splitfires.

In the search your the only guy i saw that runs the Godzilla R35 billet coil pack kit, so curious on your opinion on why you went these over spitfires.

I'll have to get back to you on that. Some plug that Scott uses. It's a heat range 9 with a funny tip. I thought I took a photo but I can't find it.

Actually i just saw this in a comments Facebook section of the Godzilla Motorsport page which to me was interesting.

So i spose its just for cars to run high power reliably without a breakdown in spark. Rather than what i thought of larger gap better bang/performance

 

Bruce Sullivan What plug gap can you run with these ? Can you get away with 1.1 for around the 450AWKW's ? 
Cheers
 
LikeShow more reactions
 · Reply · May 28, 2016 at 7:43pm
Remove
Godzilla Motorsport
Godzilla Motorsport No turbo engine should ever run 1.1mm gap . That is only for na engines
 
LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · May 30, 2016 at 5:52pm

 

 

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...