Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

LOL looks like your the guniea pig. :)

Blew a late 1UZ on the dyno last night, the limit of its compressed powder rods was 300kw on ethanol. It made massive torque though before it fractured.

Eventually something will fail, the gamble is when and at what torque.

  • Like 1

Sorry to hear about the failure Scott, where were you tuning it?

Khaled, where are you getting yours tuned? Edge? I think your pushing your luck on a stock bottom end....once your around 400Kw on a RB26 and its a stock bottom end its no longer the tuner, some serious physics start to come into play, rod bolts stretch, big ends and piston pins start deforming, factory piston ring lands can only take so much.

Better talk to Barry about the costs of a forged bottom end before you fry it and end up with the car off the road and a big repair bill......your walking into high risk unchartered territory IMHO.

Then again you and Stef never listen to anyone anyway. :P

Edited by GTRPSI

Sorry to hear about the failure Scott, where were you tuning it?

Edge. I hope Barry isn't too pissed about the mess on the floor.

Luckily it was only at 3k, it would have made one hell of a mess at 7. No wonder they park that old Ford beside the dyno. lol.

  • Like 1

Sorry to hear about the failure Scott, where were you tuning it?

Khaled, where are you getting yours tuned? Edge? I think your pushing your luck on a stock bottom end....once your around 400Kw on a RB26 and its a stock bottom end its no longer the tuner, some serious physics start to come into play, rod bolts stretch, big ends and piston pins start deforming, factory piston ring lands can only take so much.

Better talk to Barry about the costs of a forged bottom end before you fry it and end up with the car off the road and a big repair bill......your walking into high risk unchartered territory IMHO.

Then again you and Stef never listen to anyone anyway. :P

I never once said I wanted 400kw though? I was just curious to know how many more people have accomplished this since this thread has started.

Also quite a few people are running 400+ on a stock 26 on e85. Its amazing how strong these rb's are.

Edited by drgtr7

I never once said I wanted 400kw though? I was just curious to know how many more people have accomplished this since this thread has started.

Also quite a few people are running 400+ on a stock 26 on e85. Its amazing how strong these rb's are.

Your not that far away now on 98 correct?

Nah you never said 400Kw...but your going to end up around it by the looks of things if you go E85. :)

I thought i heard Stef mention your were fiitting a E85 sensor to yours at JAK (or am i mixing you up with someone else)?

Yes RB's are strong, but get the revs up and thats when the strain starts to show, note Scotts comments about the engine he lost on E85 at 3K, allbeit with 1UZ stock rods.

@ Scotty, What do you think it was, the slow burn of the E85 putting out too much cyllinder pressure/torque on the rods, what sort of numbers were seen around the RPM when it popped, or do you think the rod was stressed from a previous dyno run when at song and bound to fail on the next run?

Bah, its only oil and frag to be cleaned, as long as any metal didnt meet any customers cars nearby, probably hear all about it next week.

Is your EVO back on the road?

Edited by GTRPSI

My car makes 800nm on the Edge dyno, the Soarer was making 1200nm at 10psi. Torque is what kills rods I imagine, and this had it in bulk. It would have been stressed from the previous runs, but the sintered rods just fracture and let go, no bending etc like you would see on a forged rod before it failed.

Yes, the Evo is running, just a few small issues to sort out and I can fit the 1400's and tune it.

  • Like 1
  • 8 months later...
  • 2 years later...

Thread bump

Update on my stock bottom end.

made 480-500kw on JEM's dyno with a 8374 w 1.05 rear on e85

- Mild head work with small cams

- stock crank, rods and pistons

- stock oil pump and sump

Ran 10.7 @ 134mph on 28ish psi in Sydney summary with 8374. Probably could go 136-138mph in the winter....

Am now inthe processing of upgrading to a 9180 w 1.05 rear.

Depending on how brave I'm feeling I'll tell the tuner to cap the power at 570kw-600kw (on JEM's dyno). It should be good for 140-145 mph.

Long live the stock bottom end.

Lots of big power stock bottom ends floating around. Would love to hear updates on the setups, particularly with:

- power on workshop dyno (lets be honest these do differ quite a lot)

- turbo with rear housing and psi

- basic engine mods

- fuel

Cheers

  • Like 2
42 minutes ago, usmair said:

Long live the stock bottom end.

Lots of big power stock bottom ends floating around. Would love to hear updates on the setups, particularly with:

- power on workshop dyno (lets be honest these do differ quite a lot)

- turbo with rear housing and psi

- basic engine mods

- fuel

Cheers

My first motor died after about 4 years with varying levels of power from 450kw to 550kw. It died a sad death when it dropped a valve guide (it had actually dropped 11 of them but the others had shot out the exhaust). Bottom end was still mint when it came out.

New motor has been going a few years with 520-567kw with a few different cam combos. Seems to love life and gets driven fairly hard at the track a lot and 1000m drags.

 

- power on workshop dyno (lets be honest these do differ quite a lot) 567kw on a dynapack hub dyno

- turbo with rear housing and psi Precision 6262 0.84 with just over 30psi

- basic engine mods mild ported head and smallish cams

- fuel United E85

  • Like 3
  • 3 months later...

Ok. Bit of an update 

Car is now running an EFR 9180. Still factory Nissan bottom end with factory pump and sump.

On 35 psi it made 580kw on JEMs dyno. 

Recent Sydney winter weather has been bumping up the boost and it's hit 39 psi a few times now and still survived. 

On 39 psi you'd think it'd be 610-630kw on the same dyno....??

 

20180519_211350.jpg

On 2/2/2018 at 1:41 PM, SimonR32 said:

My first motor died after about 4 years with varying levels of power from 450kw to 550kw. It died a sad death when it dropped a valve guide (it had actually dropped 11 of them but the others had shot out the exhaust). Bottom end was still mint when it came out.

New motor has been going a few years with 520-567kw with a few different cam combos. Seems to love life and gets driven fairly hard at the track a lot and 1000m drags.

 

- power on workshop dyno (lets be honest these do differ quite a lot) 567kw on a dynapack hub dyno

- turbo with rear housing and psi Precision 6262 0.84 with just over 30psi

- basic engine mods mild ported head and smallish cams

- fuel United E85

Up to 582kw these days (Mainline hub dyno), ran a 9.6 @ 146mph so power and speed match fairly well

Edited by SimonR32
  • Like 2
  • 7 months later...

Thread bump and update

So I ran 10.4 at 140.6 mph with the EFR 9180 at 2018 GTR festival. Turned it up to 11 for the next run and broke a rear shaft so only got one decent run.

Upon inspection of the Haltech data log we discovered the turbo was hitting 30 psi from 1 to 4th and would only see 35psi in 5th gear so safe to say I was a 50-60 KW short on the run. Profec B no good...

I now have boost by gear set up via an eboost2 and the the car has 37psi shoved down its throat with it tapering off to 34psi by redline.

Should help the MPH a bit I'd say

Ready to head back out to WSID once Sydney weather cools. 

A 9 second pass with a stock bottom end and 34 getrag is the goal. Don't think it's ever been done before,  especially in the heavier 33 GTR.... ??

Still all factory Nissan parts from the head down

  • Like 2

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...