Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Juan_2_3 said:

are you able to overlay the -5s results?

Different dyno

-5 was RWD

8374 is 4WD.

i can, but ignoring dyno's it feels like the car has a 3.4 in it. Absolutely NO comparison.

  • Like 1

 

1 hour ago, Piggaz said:

That's where she ended up on E80.

120k turbine speed.

Scott said it will go 500 but he was happy leaving it there. 

 

IMG_5505.JPG

Awesome effort mate.

Monday was a public holiday over here in the West and I spent some of the day reading through your thread again from start to finish.

Your honestly and openness in your results and parts choices etc - well done mate and a big thanks.

You have convinced me to move my ass and get moving on updating my setup ;)

Awesome thread and car - can we get some updated pics of the whole car....

Dan

Edited by IMACUL8
  • Like 2
1 minute ago, IMACUL8 said:

A

Awesome effort mate.

Monday was a public holiday over here in teh West and I sent some of the day reading through your thread again from start to finish.

Your honestly and openness in your results and parts choices etc - well done mate and a big thanks.

You have convinced me to move my ass and get moving on updating my setup ;)

Awesome thread and car - can we get some updated pics of the whole car....

Dan

Cheers man.

Yeah. Sure.

Things to do;

- wash it

- wheel alignment

- remove redundant gauges and boost controller from car

- make catch can for box ? (Although it's stopped spewing. Self level FTW)

- farken drive it!

Pick up is tomorrow. 

Thats the most power anyone has made on Scotts dyno with an 8374, with still some left in the tank.

 

  • Like 3

@usmair

That's roughly 26 psi tapering to 23 ish psi topend. 122,000 RPM turbine speed. If we went all in it would have been lucky to see another 0.5psi uptop. Turbo is pretty much done. 

Has anyone done a comparison with GTX twins? Hi or low, just a modern twin setup vs a modern single. 

Single still makes way more sense in terms of packaging, but I'd be curious as to what the differences were. 

Was Geoff saying they are doing twin baby EFR setups? 

 

 

13 hours ago, Piggaz said:

@usmair

That's roughly 26 psi tapering to 23 ish psi topend. 122,000 RPM turbine speed. If we went all in it would have been lucky to see another 0.5psi uptop. Turbo is pretty much done. 

Thanks.

I'm not 100% sure but I think mine kept making power from 25 up to 30 psi where I told tuner to stop due to stock bottom end. The 8374 has made 550kw at 34psi on JEM's dyno before.

Maybe it was out if its efficiency range and exceeding safe turbine speeds - say past 27psi - but it made power. TBH i think JEM's dyno is a little on the happy side but the tune is good so I'm not bothered.

Mine sees 31 psi regularly and no issues in the year it has been on the car.

*awaits flaming*

17 minutes ago, usmair said:

Thanks.

I'm not 100% sure but I think mine kept making power from 25 up to 30 psi where I told tuner to stop due to stock bottom end. The 8374 has made 550kw at 34psi on JEM's dyno before.

Maybe it was out if its efficiency range and exceeding safe turbine speeds - say past 27psi - but it made power. TBH i think JEM's dyno is a little on the happy side but the tune is good so I'm not bothered.

Mine sees 31 psi regularly and no issues in the year it has been on the car.

*awaits flaming*

Boost is almost meaningless. Throw the gauge in the bin.

Want more boost? Use a less effecient setup. Put a heap of shit intercooler on it, whatever.

Top end, the boost between Pete's 3.2 and my 2.8 are the same. The difference? Most of it would be the head.

Two car's, one with a well thought out head and one with a stocker at the same turbine speed will be reading vastly different pressures. 

Pressure doesn't always mean "x" flow when comparing two setups. If I could make the same power at 10 psi, I would.

Your 30 psi may be reading the same turbine speed as my 23 psi for example. Thing is you don't know where the turbo is without a speed sensor.

 

  • Like 3
50 minutes ago, usmair said:

Maybe it was out if its efficiency range and exceeding safe turbine speeds - say past 27psi - but it made power. TBH i think JEM's dyno is a little on the happy side but the tune is good so I'm not bothered.

Mine sees 31 psi regularly and no issues in the year it has been on the car.

*awaits flaming*

As Piggaz set, the boost pressure is a tiny part of the story.  Without going far at all into the big world of turbo matching to engines etc - I'll try and give a very simple picture of what the difference between your motor at 7000rpm and Piggaz one could hypothetically be.

Say your engine at 7000rpm is running 31psi - so pressure ratio of 3.1, and has ~105% VE at those rpm.  You get a relatively bullshit but for the point of this story a reasonably descriptive 2.6 x 3.1 x 105% = 8.46 effective litres of air moved per engine cycle at 7000rpm.

Now lets looks at Piggas HEAVILY developed head/everything setup with a 2.8 litre stroker.   Lets say its at ~24psi (pressure ratio 2.63) and has ~115% VE at those rpm... 2.8 x 2.63 x 115% = 8.47.

It is entirely possible to have the same amount of air moved with much less boost using a different engine combination and the same turbo, it is entirely plausible that Piggaz' turbo is working as hard at 24psi as yours is at 31psi.    Put the same turbo on a 4G63 and you could run 35psi through it and have a LOWER turbine speed... ie, it is running more boost and is actually safer.

We talk about turbine speed being the problem, not boost.   You have no turbine speed sensor so we have no idea whether you are at a safe place or not, but if Piggaz tried running 31psi at high rpm I am certain he'd run into some kind of limit.   There is the possibility yours is actually fine, its just that the power level etc suggests that its in a place we'd not normally expect but if the dyno is happy and its making the power fine then it may actually be all good.

What kind of trap speeds are you running?  I am guessing Piggaz car could be in the territory of 140mph.

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 1

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 will rebutt this and the preceding point from Dose....but without doing any calcs to demonstrate anything and without knowing that I am right or wrong. But... The flow capacity of a fluid transfer system is not limited by the smallest orifice or section of conduit in that system, unless it is drastically smaller than the rest of the system. OK, I use the word drastically perhaps with too much emphasis, but let's drill down on what I really mean. The flow capacity of the system is the result of the sum of the restrictions of the entire system. So, to make an extreme example, if you have a network with 3" pipe everywhere (and let's say a total length of only a few metres) and that 12mm ID restriction of the oil filter connection being the obvious restriction, then for any given amount of pressure available, the vast majority of all the pressure drop in the system is going to occur in the 12mm restriction. But.... increase the length of the 3" pipeline to, say 1000m, and suddenly the pipe pressure loss will likely add up to either be in the same order of magnitude, possibly even exceeding that of the 12mm restriction. Now the 12mm restriction starts to matter less. Translate this to the actual engine, actual oil cooler hose sizing, etc etc, and perhaps: The pressure loss caused by flowing through the narrow section (being the 12mm oil filter port, and perhaps any internal engine oil flow pathways associated with it) is a certain number. The pressure loss through, say, -12 hoses out to the cooler and back is negligible, but The pressure loss through -10 hoses out to the cooler, at the exact same length as the above, starts to become a decent fraction of the loss through the 12mm stuff at the filter port. Maybe even it starts to exceed it. I could actually do these calcs if I knew 1) how much oil was actually flowing in the line, 2) gave enough of a f**k to do things that I hate doing for work, voluntarily for a hypothetical discussion. Anyway - I reiterate. It's not the narrowest port that necessarily determines how much it can all flow. It is the sum. A long enough length of seemingly fat enough pipe can still cause more loss than a semmingly dominant small bore restriction.
    • To pick up what Dose is putting down. Not a lot of point running a huge hose if the motor is still restricted to the smaller size... It's only capable of flowing so much at that point...   *Waits for GTSBoy to come in and bring in the technicalities of length of pipe, and additional restriction from wall friction etc etc*
    • Hooley Dooley these things have some history! If i sell them they will need a certificate of providence to prove they have been in the hands of verified RB20 royalty! They have been stored in a plastic tub, away from sunlight and moisture. They are in mint condition. And they will stay that way, as i have sprung the money for a set of shockworks coilovers. I'm just working on getting them in at the moment, after rebushing the rear of the car, and while the subframe was out i welded in the GKtech reinforcement bracing as well.  They will get a workout at Ararat King of The Hill in November. I ran 48s on the short course there a few months ago, and i am hoping with new bushes and shocks in the rear i can launch a bit harder. There was a fair bit of axle tramp when i tried too hard off the line. a few of the corners had dips mid way which also made the car feel a bit unsettled, hopefully this will help there too.   
    • Food for thought, the stock oil filter thread is a 3/4-16 UNF, which has an ID of about 10 to 12mm (according to ChatGPT lol). Now compare than to an 10AN, which has an ID of about 14mm (Raceworks is 14.2mm, Speed flow is 14.27mm).  
    • Yep, totally get that. However hooking in for Generator back up is only a few hundred bucks for the wiring. You could put a couple of those in (for different circuits explicitly) and run a couple of baby generators. Bonus, you can balance them across different circuits, and now have backups in your backup. I'm looking at buying places that won't even have water etc, and I don't mind the idea of getting off the electric grid either, even with everything you've said. This country already has enough power outages that even the mains grid isn't that reliable anymore. I do agree though on spending a bit more to get better gear, and to add some extra redundancy in to the system too.
×
×
  • Create New...