Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Disregard lol

Yes it should be quite responsive Dale, i was considering upgrading to the bigger rear housing but to be honest im over spending money and i just want to drive the thing.. I think the result is going to blow the 2.6 set up out of the water

perfomance should be increased by

2.9 stroker

compression bumped to 9.1 from stock

More responsive cams

Port work with standard sized valves to maintain airspeed

Much better valve springs (ferrea Dual valve springs) old ones were slinkys

Ceramic coated entire exhaust side

Engine is ready for pick up, just waiting on exhaust pick up

haha i could have the engine in by next week... but then it could be at the mod shop for up to a month (large variable) haha

it needs a couple of small repairs done and a run in Tune. The run in tune wont take Yavuz long... Go and drive it for a day straight (Nato runs) , bring it back in for full tune hahah

  • Like 1

Meh what rubbish, throw a bit of boost into it on the dyno with some load.. Tune it

drive it around (not highway ks, you need to load the engine up)... keep the RPm reasonable

we did Pauls car in 2 days from memory *Drives with brakes on hahah

They tell me at CRD to take as long as I can to run it in but drive it normal. Not sure what boost will be on it, not much I guess ?

Did they build the engine? Usually its a safe guard for the tuner if they haven't built assembled it themselves.

The longer you run it in, the longer it lasts generally, but who is really expecting 100 000kms from a built motor.

Joey, after tune I ran the boat in at the drags, seemed to work well, LOL.

From my understanding the motor is run in within the first 20 minutes of running hence why it is so important to get some power into it asap.

Isn't it all just about getting the honing on the bore sorted to get the seal?

Yep that's about right Mark.. I've seen engines that are baby'd just pissing out oil. The. Got put on the dyno for 15 min with some load and boost and the blow by nearly stopped all together.

I believe the contributing factor these days is the precision in piston ring manufacturing.

FMW = Forged Milled Wheel in B-W speak. So billet compressor.

I've found getting a good seal in the bores can take much more than 15mins on the dyno, especially when using chrome rings. A good flogging with plenty of combustion pressures pushing the rings out, and a mineral oil helped mine immensely.

Mine was driven for 2000km - nothing over 5000rpm on highway and NZ open roads (which are not straight). Put it on the dyno gave it boost and absolutely no blow by. All in the engineering job I say.

And I am glad this thread came up I was thinking of upgrading to a single BW turbo (ditching the -5's).

Might be a good idea.

Its thread's/vids like these that get me excited for my build. Btw the car looks great. My understanding was that a 2.9 stroker would make the walls of the block too thin.. is that bs? What width piston are you using?

Edited by Tyranus

Its thread's/vids like these that get me excited for my build. Btw the car looks great. My understanding was that a 2.9 stroker would make the walls of the block too thin.. is that bs? What width piston are you using?

It's a 79.3 mm stroke with 86.5 or 87 mm pistons. Not sure if Joey had to go to the next size.

Its thread's/vids like these that get me excited for my build. Btw the car looks great. My understanding was that a 2.9 stroker would make the walls of the block too thin.. is that bs? What width piston are you using?

Using a custom 87mm piston with a heightened pin location to allow for a longer rod (off the shelf) and better rod/stroke ratio. There was a small worry about having to make clearance at the base of the bore for the extra throw but after a trial assembly it cleared easily

Its a bit under 2.9L atm, but with an 88 mm piston its damn close. I kept to the 87mm cause im trying to make it last as long as possible

an 88 has been done many times before though :)

Mine was driven for 2000km - nothing over 5000rpm on highway and NZ open roads (which are not straight). Put it on the dyno gave it boost and absolutely no blow by. All in the engineering job I say.

And I am glad this thread came up I was thinking of upgrading to a single BW turbo (ditching the -5's).

Might be a good idea.

I have a graph of 2 very similar setups, one with a BW 83/75 and one with -5's

Take a guess who smoked who haha

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

    • 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...