Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

with all the new turbos ( i.e: bilelt technology) arent the -9 outdated in the way that you can get the same response but with better power?

What you're referring to there is just a type of material production process. I think you may be referring to newer materials / machining processes in todays turbos?

I was under the impression that the -9's weren't too bad in that area.

Mine may be laggy at the mo....but there are some graphs on here that are pure porn! :)

Did it go to the cat or get sucked back in?

Nope :-)

What you're referring to there is just a type of material production process.

Agreed. My guess is machining wheels from billet is just a low volume production method, so would be good for prototyping. discopotato would know....

To answer the question about -9's being outdated. Garret -5, -7, -9, -10 all use exhaust wheels cast from Inconel (mix of nickel steel etc). To get better response from these same turbos, titanium aluminide could be used to save about 30% weight vs inconel. The Garrett GTX range use steel billet wheels, they should be stronger (vs the casting process) and have better flow (updated wheel design) but billet steel doesn't do much for weight, they may even weigh more than the old Inconel wheels.

To answer the question about -9's being outdated. Garret -5, -7, -9, -10 all use exhaust wheels cast from Inconel (mix of nickel steel etc). To get better response from these same turbos, titanium aluminide could be used to save about 30% weight vs inconel. The Garrett GTX range use steel billet wheels, they should be stronger (vs the casting process) and have better flow (updated wheel design) but billet steel doesn't do much for weight, they may even weigh more than the old Inconel wheels.

exactly what I was refering too, if it they flow better by 10-15% ( garret's figure), this should result in better perofrmance no?

BTW, I own myself a pair of -9 just wondering if 3 years later, theres not better turbos out there ( lots of talk about precision turbo beeing as responsive as twin but with power of single)

exactly what I was refering too, if it they flow better by 10-15% ( garret's figure), this should result in better perofrmance no?

BTW, I own myself a pair of -9 just wondering if 3 years later, theres not better turbos out there ( lots of talk about precision turbo beeing as responsive as twin but with power of single)

Hey Cobra, would you mind sharing how you went with your -9's? Mine are looking much more promising now, lighting the rears up in 2nd and 3rd so am very keen on getting my front diff back up and running and a retune!

At what RPMs would you be making say, 1 bar and fullboost?

Hey Cobra, would you mind sharing how you went with your -9's? Mine are looking much more promising now, lighting the rears up in 2nd and 3rd so am very keen on getting my front diff back up and running and a retune!

At what RPMs would you be making say, 1 bar and fullboost?

curious what tyres u running? I can't get my rears to light up unless I rev and launch, but not 2nd n 3rd

Well it is just RWD now with front drive shaft disconnected because of buggered diff. The tyres are near new Federals, 255 45's with just 30psi in them to give it a bit of a better contact patch while it's just RWD and can't shift power anywhere.

Yeh this is just around 4000-4500 when the turbos really ramp up hard. Realy want my front diff going again so that I can feel all of the power not just up to where it breaks traction. It was quite a mess when I had 35psi in the tires - it hardly put any down.

Also, mine will only do it in 2nd and 3rd....the tune is not good enough to make it do it in 1st with just a normal non stalled up / spiked launch. My R33 N1's were the same....1st was only there for one reason and that's to get the car into 2nd :D

....unless you bought the turbos up to speed with a rolling start at about 3000rpm and then launched it, then it went stupid in all gears except 4th and 5th....although 4th was a bit on edge especially on bumps or crests..

Hey Cobra, would you mind sharing how you went with your -9's? Mine are looking much more promising now, lighting the rears up in 2nd and 3rd so am very keen on getting my front diff back up and running and a retune!

At what RPMs would you be making say, 1 bar and fullboost?

does this mean you have figured out fixing the rear diff or just going to get the front done and do back later

if you still have no love from the -9s you could try getting the rear housings off your stock turbos machined to fit the -9s, that would improve response just kill top end a bit

Also, mine will only do it in 2nd and 3rd....the tune is not good enough to make it do it in 1st with just a normal non stalled up / spiked launch. My R33 N1's were the same....1st was only there for one reason and that's to get the car into 2nd :D

LOL, so true :P

Um nah the rear one is still worn but I let the tyres down and made sure both sides are very even. Keeps it straight for longer lol.

Yeh I'll be fixing the front diff first and then sorting out what to do with the rear.

Yeh you do make a good point there...I reckon once you've been through a heap of turbos you'll know exactly what you want and could make up a hybrid setup. But I would like to give these -9's one last chance with re-tune at Godzilla. If I still don't like the feel after that I'll probably strip the gear off and focus on more important matters in life ;-) 8 years worth of blowing money on Skylines is starting to get to me :unsure:

But one thing is already very apparant and that is, sure enough they may be quite laggy in the city (at this stage) but when you're out on the open roads they can really hawl some ass. Quite impressive how they'll pull in 3rd and 4th....a LOT better than what my ceramics were capable off.

...hopefully with a re-tune I'll get a good average between the past ceramics performance and the current mid-to-topend performance of the 9's.

get them to dial in cam gears for response, I sent you some settings awhile back, that would be a good starting point for alround use with stock cams

I've been spending money on these things for over 10 years now, but would much prefer spending money on these then drugs, smokes or alcohol, and when attending events like texi, its something I can do with my son when he is old enough

get them to dial in cam gears for response, I sent you some settings awhile back, that would be a good starting point for alround use with stock cams

I've been spending money on these things for over 10 years now, but would much prefer spending money on these then drugs, smokes or alcohol, and when attending events like texi, its something I can do with my son when he is old enough

You and your words of wisdom ;) Yeh I'll be running those degree settings past him and see what he can do.

Well from what I've seen you've had some pretty impressive results too...especially those with your ceramics that's not a bad effort. I think the most that I ever made with my ceramics was like 354hp and then 375hp with the 33 N1's.

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...