Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for information on cam choices vs turbo size for a car that is aiming to make 350-400 kW to come on boost early in the rev range around 3000 rpm if not sooner ive looked at a fair few dyno graphs but not all have the RPM figures so im only guessing

ive been looking at -5s vs a Precision 6262 or even -7s to try and get the response im chasing

i would also like to know what parts i should be factoring in to try and achieve my goal the motor is going to be a 2.6 running 98

im also looking for advice regarding exhaust manifold and dump pipe sizing eg will going a smaller size improve spool time vs larger piping for more up top

any help would be appreciated as i seem to mill over this in my head on a daily basis at the moment

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/419346-ways-to-improve-response/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think bigger dump is better even if its just a placebo effect, and hook it up with a good boost controller and spike it early, ethanol or meth and alot of ignition timing obviously would help, twin scroll housing etc. My GTX woke up with ethanol and a boost spike, not sure if HPC coating the manifold and housing contributed but a good idea too

Edited by AngryRBGTX

Stroker

High comp

E85

3 big things your setup doesn't seem to have. 350 plus might be a bit of a stretch on -7's without nailing everything.

A big exhaust goes along way. No "ups and downs" in size too.

What are you doing with the car?

Edit: -7's not -9's. Err.

streeter capable of holding its own at track days i dont know enough about stokers to invest but would like to learn if you can point me in the right direction

would the -9s be applicable on a stroked setup? if seen good results from the precison in the reigion of 3000 but that was on e85 comments?

If you wanna hold your own at track days you'll be spending more time and money in suspension, geometry, brakes, rubber, diffs, transfer case etc etc. Over worrying about the outright power. There is a solid 10k in those things, more if you get even more serious.

Prime example here in Vic is everyone said you needed 380rwkw to get a GTR into the 'teens' at Sandown. Then one day it was done solidly with 330rwkw and full weight. It came down to the things mentioned earlier - and a driver with experience and knowledge of his car :)

Put -9s on (so its still responsive around town), and spend time/money in getting the car sorted in the more important areas - especially seat time, as you'll chop times consistently for years In most cases especially as you develop the car. Enjoy milling over that for the next month lol :merli:

aiming to make 350-400 kW to come on boost early in the rev range around 3000 rpm if not sooner

Honestly, it's impossible.

My -7s doesn't make full boost at this sort of revs. Nor did the -9s did.

A specific answer.......smaller diameter primaries in the exhaust manifold will obviously give you the best response. There is a mention in one of the other threads very recently about a small bore 6boost manifold (and Kyle's unwillingness to make any/too many of them) that gave better response. You would want to emulate something like that. Most aftermarket manifolds have an emphasis on being big enough to support as much power as anyone could want. They all claim to try to deliver as much response as possible, but I'm sure that if you were willing to put up with a bit more restriction of really high flows you could further enhance the bottom end pick up.

cheers

^ and with good reason, making them response driven from the exhaust side maybe hurts too much in the top end?

You could build the head more specifically for response, but expect once again the top end to hurt (and you wouldn't make that call if you put -5s on).

asking for advice about what configuration will come closest to what im looking for im more will to compromise on the power figure but i want to get as close as possible to the 400 mark

Well on 98 & 2.6ltr, you have little choice as it's a tall ask even for -5s. You'll get to 370rwkw but you aren't going to have the response you want.

-9s will give you 330rwkw pretty much as max and will get as close to your response aim.

Many threads have sorta gone along this way and 10 pages later - it's simply a case of you need to make the choice. This post summed it perfect:

400kw, 2.6lt, full boost by 3k, pick two......

ok so if i accept the fact that im going to have to stroke the motor what would i be looking at in the way of supporting mods so i can get everything in place before i start to build the motor?

what have you guys tried that works i want to do this once and do it right

A specific answer.......smaller diameter primaries in the exhaust manifold will obviously give you the best response. There is a mention in one of the other threads very recently about a small bore 6boost manifold (and Kyle's unwillingness to make any/too many of them) that gave better response. You would want to emulate something like that. Most aftermarket manifolds have an emphasis on being big enough to support as much power as anyone could want. They all claim to try to deliver as much response as possible, but I'm sure that if you were willing to put up with a bit more restriction of really high flows you could further enhance the bottom end pick up.

cheers

^^ this.

I doubt slightly smaller diameter runners would hurt top end on a 400kw e85 build. What sort of power do the standard 6boobs flow?

It's always interesting as the turbine housing is usually always where the restriction is, so promoting flow outta the head larger/smaller runners - would be interesting to see how much response you would actually get.

ok so if i accept the fact that im going to have to stroke the motor what would i be looking at in the way of supporting mods so i can get everything in place before i start to build the motor?

what have you guys tried that works i want to do this once and do it right

Well nothing really. Just bolt on turbos and wait until you do the motor.

If it's 3-4 years away then why put wear and tear on motor parts now? :)

Better to do it all at once, so it's fresh, and no weak/worn links in the build.

So seriously, do all the drivetrain stuff I said earlier. Chop the lap times down hard as you can (there is 10k there as i said). Then once you are ready, do the build and then continue development... By which point you'll know a hell of a lot more than you do now, and also be able to drive it much better to actually notice how small changes affect the car. That knowledge doesn't come overnight

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

    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
×
×
  • Create New...