Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Good to see this would be good to know it's limits once honed

They still tell me I'll hit 350 or more with this manifold. Good stuff I recon.

Yes the stock 25 rods arent the strongest but if u keep the revs sane as alot have u can run more

Power than 300kw.

Hmmm. Dunno. 26/30 build first. Lol then moar powaaa.

in the rb25 dyno power section someone made just under 350kw with a standard exhaust manifold surly you could make more with the ported one YER ?

im at 322kw with my standard one with boost dropping down to 19psi with a hks 3037 pro s .87

Edited by WARLORD

hey tyson it looks like you got it ceramic coated as well, was that included in the price or was it 800 just for the porting..

It came back costing me 800 in total. I'll confirm if it was coated tomorrow :)

Yeah. Any others tried standard manifold porting.

Spent 6 or so hours cleaning up mine best I could with a die grinder. Took heaps out but hopefully not too much. Bolting a HG SS2 to it. Just waiting for the head which is getting heaps of port/chamber work and cams.

+1 to E85 and more boost! my motor is stock along with the standard manifold and im making 336rwkw on E85 with a GTX3071 so the 76 on E85 would make 350kw easily.

By the sounds of it you need to spend some money on suspension and drivetrain if you are getting terrible traction at the power you are making now as my car doesnt spin wheels that much with my power...........Except when Jez drives my car lol! I wouldnt of thought flowing your standard headers would of given more power but would surely help boost come on bit better i would think

+1 to E85 and more boost! my motor is stock along with the standard manifold and im making 336rwkw on E85 with a GTX3071 so the 76 on E85 would make 350kw easily.

By the sounds of it you need to spend some money on suspension and drivetrain if you are getting terrible traction at the power you are making now as my car doesnt spin wheels that much with my power...........Except when Jez drives my car lol! I wouldnt of thought flowing your standard headers would of given more power but would surely help boost come on bit better i would think

AlReady done suspension. I'm running stock wheels n tires plus because turbo is laggier and bigger the power comes on later and more abruptly than yours. 1st gone. 2nd gone. 3rd barely hanging on. I should probably soften my ass end a bit more too.

How do you find response on you gtx3071. Do you think you could have broken 300 without e85?

in the rb25 dyno power section someone made just under 350kw with a standard exhaust manifold surly you could make more with the ported one YER ?

im at 322kw with my standard one with boost dropping down to 19psi with a hks 3037 pro s .87

That power isn't the limit if mY setup. Its me and tuners specifically stopping due to no internals done.

hey tyson it looks like you got it ceramic coated as well, was that included in the price or was it 800 just for the porting..

OK no ceramic coating. Just polished inside for 50 extra which took it to the 800 mark.

OK also I have slightly less boost response. Makes sense due to bigger piping. But due to heaps of timing being put back in due to more flow and cooler temps I have more power at any given rpm so winning still.

I think I realy want to give this a go with a external wastgate welded on. Looks promising is there many places doing this.???

Not really lol. Feel free to steal number off my flow chart. As long ad you say a customer of jjm turboworld suggested u try them lol.

AlReady done suspension. I'm running stock wheels n tires plus because turbo is laggier and bigger the power comes on later and more abruptly than yours. 1st gone. 2nd gone. 3rd barely hanging on. I should probably soften my ass end a bit more too.

How do you find response on you gtx3071. Do you think you could have broken 300 without e85?

Response isnt too bad probably a tad laggier than a GT3076 in all honesty but i find it feels a bit peakier than the 76 when it comes on though. But the E85 makes it so much stronger EVERYWHERE and full boost is 3700rpm in 4th gear. But down lower in 2nd its frying the tyres at bout 3800-4000rpm then it frys 3rd instantly for a bit then the ass end feels all floaty and squirmy till 4th gear lol! :teehee:

I was running 98 and made 288kw tuned down to 278kw on 21psi plus boost leaks then swapped to E85.

What sort of diff you running?

Response isnt too bad probably a tad laggier than a GT3076 in all honesty but i find it feels a bit peakier than the 76 when it comes on though. But the E85 makes it so much stronger EVERYWHERE and full boost is 3700rpm in 4th gear. But down lower in 2nd its frying the tyres at bout 3800-4000rpm then it frys 3rd instantly for a bit then the ass end feels all floaty and squirmy till 4th gear lol! :teehee:

I was running 98 and made 288kw tuned down to 278kw on 21psi plus boost leaks then swapped to E85.

What sort of diff you running?

Standard dif haha.

That power isn't the limit if mY setup. Its me and tuners specifically stopping due to no internals done.

sorry what i mean is it should make more power with your manifold on my car.and that if someone is making just under 350kw with a stock one then your manifold should be able to make more. in theory

will i get a better price if i mention jim lol

Edited by WARLORD

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...