Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I think your WHP are overinflated American specs. I'm running a shitload of massive upgrades and an UpRev tune and i'm only running 230WHP.

Agreed. I have all intake/exhaust mods and spacer (tune could be better was slightly lean) and made 165rwkw. This equates to around 220rwhp.

200rwkw

5AT - HKS turbo kit, 6psi, uprev. I've seen uprev tunes from US cars making over 300rwkw, with not a lot of difference to my tune, but with a bit more boost. What I've figured is that the yanks over exaggerate their figures.

It all comes down to the dyno operator and what your paying them to do. Example- if you paid me $1000 to fit the new beut part to your car and tune it, you would like to see a increase in power yeah? dial up the dyno.... its that easy.

Do you think a NA "200kw" car has the same power as my 200kw turbo'd VQ35?

200rwkw

5AT - HKS turbo kit, 6psi, uprev. I've seen uprev tunes from US cars making over 300rwkw, with not a lot of difference to my tune, but with a bit more boost. What I've figured is that the yanks over exaggerate their figures.

It all comes down to the dyno operator and what your paying them to do. Example- if you paid me $1000 to fit the new beut part to your car and tune it, you would like to see a increase in power yeah? dial up the dyno.... its that easy.

Do you think a NA "200kw" car has the same power as my 200kw turbo'd VQ35?

If the NA had 200wkw and you had 200wkw on the same dyno, then yes you'd have the same power. :P

(yes mate, I know what you are saying)

Torque would be fairly different though

You always hear about the plenum spacer mod, but I never hear anything about the runner spacer or throttle body spacer. would either of these be helpful in an N/A setup?

Runner spacer will increase low-mid rpm torque a bit. Just as it does on an M35 Stagea.

pv35gt8 has one on his V35, but it is difficult to feel much difference due to the CVT.

Runner spacer will increase low-mid rpm torque a bit. Just as it does on an M35 Stagea.

At the expense of a little top end power usually. Unfortunately the peak power figures can give a false sense of power gains as they are only up high in the revs where they don't get used much. More torque in the midrange is what people should be chasing imo.

The mentioned runner spacer was made out of the same phenolic material as the spacers for the VQ25's, and can not be used in conjunction with the plenum spacer. (not the 17mm spacer that I made, could be possible with the more common 8mm spacers that everyone else has installed.)

Once I put the Cosworth plenum on it will be available if anyone wants to give it a try. I will be able to package it as a kit with all the required bolts, spacers and gasket.

Edited by pv35gt8

Are you an uprev pro dealer?

And please explain why uprev cannot go over 375whp.

or did you copy and paste this from My350z?

I think he's referring the the VQ35DE engine revision, not the ECU flash/tune....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_350Z#Models

The mentioned runner spacer was made out of the same phenolic material as the spacers for the VQ25's, and can not be used in conjunction with the plenum spacer. (not the 17mm spacer that I made, could be possible with the more common 8mm spacers that everyone else has installed.)

is this just a bonnet clearance issue?

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...