Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah very true Andrew, it's not going to make much of a difference.

I just rang Simon (the guy I mentioned above) and he said that it's possible to make at least a 10hp gain just by using light weight pistons and rods. 10hp isn't much, but it all adds up.

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

meshmesh- yeah we'll have to twist Nigel's arm to get this going I think!!! It would be more accurate if they are done on the same dyno and same day....

Merli- be more than hapy to see your beast on the dyno!!!!

sub- fantastic!!! what sort of time frame you looking at having your car ready????

Anybody out there with the Apexi AX's on a GTR (in Melb)???

meshmesh- yeah we'll have to twist Nigel's arm to get this going I think!!! It would be more accurate if they are done on the same dyno and same day....

Yeah, it'd be a lot better.

Same dyno, same day, same air temps etc etc.

The list goes on.

hey jack,

i had the t517z-10 on my bluer34 and it made 345kw on bens dyno, i think at 1.3.

i had t517z-8 on my silver r34. in my opinion the 8s are much nicer, im surprised u went with the 10s, u seem to be concerned about lag,then why the 10s, if u had a built engine and were aiming for bigger numbers than 350 i would understand.

i think if u drove a 8cm car , u may spew u went with the 10s.

ben may still have the dyno sheet for the apexi ax turbs, he tuned one for me about 2 years ago.

hey jack,

i had the t517z-10 on my bluer34 and it made 345kw on bens dyno, i think at 1.3.

i had t517z-8 on my silver r34. in my opinion the 8s are much nicer, im surprised u went with the 10s, u seem to be concerned about  lag,then why the 10s, if u had a built engine and were aiming for bigger numbers than 350 i would understand.

i think if u drove a 8cm car , u may spew u went with the 10s.

ben may still have the dyno sheet for the apexi ax turbs, he tuned one for me about 2 years ago.

Did yo have any trouble with the turbos/oil temps ?

What sort of power difference with the T517Z 8's vs 10's ?

Jeremy

Hey Dean,

I didn't know about the two sizes until after I bought them!!!! Oh well, you live and learn I guess.... Was there a considerable difference between the 8cm and 10 cm???? As far as response and power???

Just looking at JMS's old R33 GTR drag car, and they're claiming the car made 381 rwkws on 1.3 bar, using T517Z 8cm low mount turbos.... Heres the link to the page which also provides a dyno graph....

http://www.japanesemotorsport.com.au/whiter33gtr.html

How do they get so much power out of these turbos on 1.3 bar and stock motor???

Does this seem right???

Guest INASNT
Just looking at JMS's old R33 GTR drag car, and they're claiming the car made 381 rwkws on 1.3 bar, using T517Z 8cm low mount turbos.... Heres the link to the page which also provides a dyno graph....

http://www.japanesemotorsport.com.au/whiter33gtr.html

How do they get so much power out of these turbos on 1.3 bar and stock motor???

Does this seem right???

every car jms has had they have bullshitted their power. I remeber they were saying their rb25 was making over 400rwkw with stock internals and living

I remeber they were saying their rb25 was making over 400rwkw with stock internals and living

I have seen 3 of their cars die, smokey deaths at that. :wavey: But hey when you have a warehouse full of spares, does it really matter? At their cost, it probably works out cheaper to keep replacing standard engines than building a decent one. :wassup:

Hey Dean,

I didn't know about the two sizes until after I bought them!!!! Oh well, you live and learn I guess.... Was there a considerable difference between the 8cm and 10 cm???? As far as response and power???

i dont think there was a huge difference with power with 8s and 10s, but the 10s were a bit laggy, a bit 2540 ish. i didnt like them

Just looking at JMS's old R33 GTR drag car, and they're claiming the car made 381 rwkws on 1.3 bar, using T517Z 8cm low mount turbos.... Heres the link to the page which also provides a dyno graph....

http://www.japanesemotorsport.com.au/whiter33gtr.html

How do they get so much power out of these turbos on 1.3 bar and stock motor???

Does this seem right???

Thats one hell of a dyno graph - very nice, I am asking the same question too, how does that engine hold together in stock form ?!

Posted by Jack  

Just looking at JMS's old R33 GTR drag car, and they're claiming the car made 381 rwkws on 1.3 bar, using T517Z 8cm low mount turbos....  

How do they get so much power out of these turbos on 1.3 bar and stock motor???

So in other words if I put some '****tail' fuel and advance the timing, should I expect a considerable difference in power (in excess of 350rwkws) without raising boost???

More boost = More power

More timing = More power

Too much of either = Detonation = Risk of engine failure.

You can phuck an engine with shitloads of timing at low boost, or shitloads of boost with low timing.

Decent fuel > Pump fuel

Timing and boost with decent fuel > Timing and boost with pump fuel

Power output with decent fuel > Power output with pump fuel

Cost of decent fuel is minimum $5 per litre = $100 per 20 litre drum

This will give you 40 litres of fuel in your tank = 2/3 full, if mixed to 1:1 ratio.

Total cost of fuel in tank = $120

Running 1.3 bar with decent fuel @ cost above = Pointless and IMO stupid.

To summarize,

Guys @ JMS or any other workshop around the country (yes, including the guys from Perth) do not have a secret, or a trick unknown to others, to make a lot more power than Ben @ RacePace or Nige @ ICE. If you want more power, go and see the boys and they will give it to you.:)

The JMS car has done 11.2, i did 11.4

JMS car had 385 rwkw, i had 330 rwkw.

The mph on JMS car is not known, i did 124 mph.

There is not much point in delving into matters any more than that.

:cheers:

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...