Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ATM the exhaust is just cat back how big would you go the whole way through?

What's the diametre size of your car back?

If it's a 3", then go 3", if it's a 3.5" go 3.5" etc...

​Keep it consistent.

What N1 turbos you getting?

From memory they came from factory running about 1 Bar = 14.7 Psi.

(R32 GTR Nismo & N1 / R33 GTR N1 / R34 GTR V-Spec N1 & V-Spec II N1 / V-Spec II Nur / M-Spec Nur)

You could run a tad higher 1.1 Bar = 15.9 Psi / 1.2 Bar = 17.4 Psi.

What do you recommend? I'm open minded. Honestly, I was thinkin of purchasing the Garrett equivalents as I official N1 turbos would be pricey.

What's the diametre size of your car back?

If it's a 3", then go 3", if it's a 3.5" go 3.5" etc...

​Keep it consistent.

I thought these cars needed a little back flow. Having the whole exhaust the same size would not promote that.

What do you recommend? I'm open minded. Honestly, I was thinkin of purchasing the Garrett equivalents as I official N1 turbos would be pricey.

Yes, genuine N1 turbos would be pricey at the same time rare to find.

Garrett -7's would be the closest to the N1 equivalents.

I am running Garrett -7's with 15.5 Psi, which is just over 1 Bar.

Later I will run about 18 Psi = 1.2 Bar, but will get my mechanic to see what he thinks best.

Many factors are involved but you'd run what's safe for the engine / what the turbos can handle, so when you go in for a tune after the twin turbo installation, your mechanic should be able to gauge what it can run.

I thought these cars needed a little back flow. Having the whole exhaust the same size would not promote that.

Not that I know of... That theory might apply to N/A cars... As you can only go so big unless it's tuned for it...

With turbocharged cars, usually the bigger the better, but 3" / 3.5" is usually the upgrade we all go for and it frees up the exhaust flow.

:)

​Just in regards to your bigger front mount intercooler, you were better off spending the money on Down and Front Pipes with a High Flow Cat.

Giving your GTR a full exhaust upgrade will benefit you more at this stage, if you just want to keep it stock-ish...

Stock GTR front mount intercooler can handle 300+ kW's.

But anyway, all for the better in the long run.

I know it'll do 400+ kW's for a fact as well ;)

What's the diametre size of your car back?

If it's a 3", then go 3", if it's a 3.5" go 3.5" etc...

​Keep it consistent.

I apolagize it has a 3.5 inch all the way through just had a look before with that and a bigger intercooler does that add any more hp with out a tune? Just curious cause next step is a bigger fuel pump, injectors, tune and ecu yeah?

I know it'll do 400+ kW's for a fact as well ;)

:laugh: yes clearly, you would know!

Good and thanks for clarifying that!

I apolagize it has a 3.5 inch all the way through just had a look before with that and a bigger intercooler does that add any more hp with out a tune? Just curious cause next step is a bigger fuel pump, injectors, tune and ecu yeah?

So your exhaust is all good then!

Depends on what power out put you want... How many kW's you want?

Which determine if you need a bigger fuel pump / injectors / ECU / Tune or not...

:laugh: yes clearly, you would know!

Good and thanks for clarifying that!

So your exhaust is all good then!

Depends on what power out put you want... How many kW's you want?

Which determine if you need a bigger fuel pump / injectors / ECU / Tune or not...

I'm looking for 350 hp at the wheels..... So im guessing I need a fair bit

I'm looking for 350 hp at the wheels..... So im guessing I need a fair bit

Which is about 261 rwkW's.

You stock injectors / fuel pump / ECU can handle it.

The ECU will need a slight tweak but nothing crazy.

What ecu were you running?

Run a Nistune or an APex'i Power FC.

Id say that you will very quickly get bored of 250kw. So i would recommend a link ecu. I shouldve skipped the power fc stage and gone straight to a link

What link will you reccommend? Shouldn't get bored to quick as I'm only used to driving a vz sv6 haha

I'm looking for 350 hp at the wheels..... So im guessing I need a fair bit

Which is about 261 rwkW's.

You stock injectors / fuel pump / ECU can handle it.

The ECU will need a slight tweak but nothing crazy.

What ecu were you running?

Run a Nistune or an APex'i Power FC.

What's the highest stock whp that can be SAFELY achieved using stock components and N1 turbos?

Sent from my SC-03D

What's the highest stock whp that can be SAFELY achieved using stock components and N1 turbos?

Sent from my SC-03D

To be safe for street use, anywhere around the 300kW mark at the rear wheels.

Two friends of mine on SAU are running stock RB26's but one has Garrett -7's and the other has Garrett -9's

Both making 300rwkW's, which is about 402HP at the wheels, if you want to measure in HP.

You could push it further but it will depend on the condition of the engine.

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

    • Input shaft bearing. They all do it. There is always rollover noise in Nissan boxes - particularly the big box. Don't worry about it unless it gets really growly.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...