Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

At the end of the day it just flows X amount of air through the compressor, how much of it the engine can't ingest gives you the boost figure. I couldn't run more than 23psi on the final tune with the GTX3071 with 1.06 rear, the compressor was way out of efficiency and it made less power from heating the air with no benefit.

I just slotted the GTX3076 with .82 rear in today so I will let you know the outcome Wednesday hopefully. I can already tell its much more responsive... :)

giddy up, will be watching for your results, one day mine will get tuned too to add to the GTX results. Just need a resonator and wait for a dyno to be available, they all booked out in brissy for winterinternationals and jamboree i think.

he first tuned it without E85 and made 288kw with a 0.82rear on about the same boost,

4300rpm to get 200kw so they are comparable , take 20kw off for the rear housing difference and its very close, take into account a slipping clutch was was noted, and they would be very close at that point.

so looks like the two are not far apart, and personally the sound of the 76 even in GTX form is awesome. :whistling:

Edited by SliverS2

I should be able to get an overlay of both graphs but I can feel the .82 is perfect, probably for either turbo, and as they have the same turbine, they should feel much the same on the road.

Mine with the stock airbox is still silent. :(

So you both will be running .82 ext. gates in the gtx3076? Interested to see the results.

Was mickos 98 tune with a low mount .82 internal gate? 200rwkw by 4300 is pretty responsive in my view. I know he was pumping a fair bit of boost, but that might have just been on e85.

a .63 housing on a gtx3076 is a little silly. you'd be much better off with a gtx3071 or a normal gt3076 as with the .63 you'll be limited to a fair bit less than the x76 compressor can flow.

still, not a bad graph considering. the advantage is when you want a little more you can simply bolt on a bigger housing and maybe a better manifold and make a fair bit more

You could try to up the gain on the boost controller and possibly end up with a slight boost spike. Looks like the boost is set to 18psi but doesn't quite control it near max torque (~45-5000rpm). I suspect the thing is VERY close to compressor surge while boosting and your getting some very slight symptoms from that. With a compressor bigger than a 76mm 56 trim and with a 0.63A/R it'd have to be close to surge.

You can't tell driveability or response from a dyno sheet. How does it FEEL coming onto boost? Does it actually make fast boost at 4000rpm? What are the mixtures like?

Edited by simpletool

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 i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
×
×
  • Create New...