Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I just to say that NO GTR engine, 32, 33 or 34 has 206kw's from the factory!!! That is the same for the Twin Turbo Supra, etc.

For a stock GTR to make about 190kw's at wheels (some mag did it HPI or something, and also someone over at SDU ran their stock as a rock GTR on a dyno) taking into account roughly 30% drivetrain loss, GTR engines from the factory make about 250-260kw's. R34's prob more 260kw's. Which makes 100% sense as a R34 NEO RB25DET makes 206kw's, yet the R34 GTR with the RB26DETT is also suppose to make 206kw's? I think not.

GTR engines are 250-260kw's. End of story.

It was the stupid 'gentlemans agreement' between the manufactures and i think maybe the government? 206kw limit. THat is no longer.

You have a GTR?

cheers.

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what a suprise :slap:

ok:

"It still amazes me how advanced japanese engines are, the XR6T is a 4.0 L turbo.

Making 250kw.

GTR engine is only 2.6, and is very close to 250kw, even tho its stated to be 206

Hayabusa makes 114 kw from 1.3 litres. Those Japs are far too advanced."

- Ahh yes they are, thats what im saying.. what your trying to say is?

"15 years later, ford releases a 4L engine and its only making similar power...

Did you want it to make 400kw...?"

- If emissions allowed, yes.

"But the RB26DETT made alot closer to 250kw on standard boost, not 1 bar.

No it didn't."

-I beg to differ, i know a number of GTRs and a number of aticles ive read that state the GTR is a fair amount more than 206kw standard. Maybe not 250kw, but close enough. Same with the supra .. nsx.. soarer twin turbo, etc they were all approximate agreed on 206kw, thats why they all state to have 206. But none of them have exacly 206, that number is usually a little 'watered down' in terms of its real power. It came about so one didnt come out heaps more powerful than another and dominate sales because of it. Its named the 'Gentlemens agrement'.

"So what if there isnt a justifyable market for turbos in australia, Ford is one of the, if not the biggest and most profitable motor company in the world, therefor you would think they would be making the most technelogically advanced cars available"

- I know they released the ford escort cosworth, and it went very well... But what is your point?

This should mean they design even better turbo cars now..

"Ford and holden are too concerned on making there heavy cars go faster. They need to design lighter cars and then they will wreak havok."

-How isnt this true? U tell me one car ford has made recently that is turbo, and light, and made an impact on the performance genre?

The truth is, they just release updated models of cars already in existance.. and just put a bigger engine in it.

*Now if u want to continue this, do it through PM. Cos this is stupid, havent u got anything better to do?

I just to say that NO GTR engine, 32, 33 or 34 has 206kw's from the factory!!! That is the same for the Twin Turbo Supra, etc.  

For a stock GTR to make about 190kw's at wheels (some mag did it HPI or something, and also someone over at SDU ran their stock as a rock GTR on a dyno) taking into account roughly 30% drivetrain loss, GTR engines from the factory make about 250-260kw's. R34's prob more 260kw's. Which makes 100% sense as a R34 NEO RB25DET makes 206kw's, yet the R34 GTR with the RB26DETT is also suppose to make 206kw's? I think not.  

GTR engines are 250-260kw's. End of story.

It was the stupid 'gentlemans agreement' between the manufactures and i think maybe the government? 206kw limit. THat is no longer.  

You have a GTR?

cheers.

Thank you, someone who knows what they are talking about.

The XR6 does what it needs to do with a minimum of fuss. It's a family car not a sports car. It's big, roomy and torquey off the line. Why should it need to have a higher specific power output just because Ford is a huge company? It does what it was designed to do, and the base engine wasn't designed from the start as a DOHC turbo'd engine

High specific power outputs are good (yay for the FJ20 in DR30 RSX guise, 100hp/l in 1984, and yay for the Daihatsu CB70 which also made 100hp/l in 86) but you end up with narrow powerbands and torque delivery that suits light cars with gearing suited to sprinting instead of cruising (quite why the DR30 is geared to do 120 in second I don't know, but......)

And for the record, everyone knows that the topline Jap engines have been making more than 206kw, you just have to look at the power and torque figues and what revs they have been quoted at to see that they have been increasing power over the years. BUT, they don't put RB26's in family cars do they? No RB26 Cimas (Yes, Toyota makes the Aristo but its just as heavy as a XR6)

For a big heavy car the XR6T does pretty well. If they wanted to they could probably release a 260-280kw XR6 but a) they don't need to and B) its not good politics to release cars with huge power atm... HSV have dropped the GTS range

Yeh they designed it so it could be thrashed around and used like a work horse, but still have the power there when u punch it.

I like them, i just think it would be cool for them to design a new turbo performance car. Not like they dont have the moolah ;)

GTR engines are 250-260kw's. End of story.

You have a GTR?

Nah, i don't mate.

But here is what i collected from the internet and some magazine articles.

Oh, i also attended a dyno day once.

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

6.jpg

7.jpg

Hayabusa makes 114 kw from 1.3 litres. Those Japs are far too advanced."

- Ahh yes they are, thats what im saying.. what your trying to say is?  

Hayabusa has a compression of 11:1 and redlines at 10900 rpm. How long do you think, in between rebuilds...?

Here is the point : You can't compare engines on power outputs alone.

"Ford and holden are too concerned on making there heavy cars go faster. They need to design lighter cars and then they will wreak havok."

-How isnt this true? U tell me one car ford has made recently that is turbo, and light, and made an impact on the performance genre?  

Here is another point : They didn't want to, they were too busy making profits.

*Now if u want to continue this, do it through PM. Cos this is stupid, havent u got anything better to do?

Actually, i don't have anything better to do.

How about you...? Don't you have any school work...?

This thread did start of with the tuning potential of the XR6T.

In that case there is only one fact that can put an end to all the bickering.

As stated by Mario (GTR700) www.exvitermini.com ... "Show me another production car engine that is capable of generating and sustaining over 500BHP per litre of displacement on gasoline."

He's proved the RB26dett of doing just that with his GTR700. Yes it may be the extremities when it comes to mods but it shows how (possibly) the two engines would stack up. As so far I haven't heard of a 4LT XR6T producing and sustaining over 2000BHP.

It’s been more than 10 years now since the GTR raped the Australian Touring Car Series; they're still trying to forget! Let the Ford boys have their day…it won't last long. Just wait the 2 and half years and we'll get our R35 GTR to silence the critics.. once again.

Fords may have the straight-line speed but we’ve got 4wd (not me I’ve got a gts-t, but one day ;) …and we still own the track.

-Dan

Those dynos mean nothing.

Everyone knows that stock GTR makes more than its stated 206kw.

-My god, i said way back in the thread that im not comparing the power figures to determine how 'advanced' they are. Check post 22 if youve misplaced your glasses ;)

See that avatar of mine? Its japanese for Hayabusa, so i know a little bit about them :)

You say "Ford/holden didnt need to make a performance car, they were too busy making profits"

Once again, my god, thats exacly what i was saying buddy, They SHOULD be focusing more on performance... But they arent.. thats my point.

"Dont i have any school work?"

haha such an inferior pay out from such an inferior person

;) :slap:

This thread did start of with the tuning potential of the XR6T.

In that case there is only one fact that can put an end to all the bickering.

As stated by Mario (GTR700) www.exvitermini.com ...  "Show me another production car engine that is capable of generating and sustaining over 500BHP per litre of displacement on gasoline."

He's proved the RB26dett of doing just that with his GTR700. Yes it may be the extremities when it comes to mods but it shows how (possibly) the two engines would stack up. As so far I haven't heard of a 4LT XR6T producing and sustaining over 2000BHP.

It’s been more than 10 years now since the GTR raped the Australian Touring Car Series; they're still trying to forget! Let the Ford boys have their day…it won't last long. Just wait the 2 and half years and we'll get our R35 GTR to silence the critics.. once again.

Fords may have the straight-line speed but we’ve got 4wd (not me I’ve got a gts-t, but one day ;) …and we still own the track.

-Dan

;) Hooray! thats another one with a head on his shoulders

Nice info about mario there, didnt know that :)

Ford and Holden don’t make performance cars. Why? Because there is no market. That’s why they are both profitable brands. They cater to the markets needs. The market is saturated with cheap performance cars (see WRX). Why bother trying to compete when they are market leaders in their own field? Local manufacturers don’t need to build performance cars to please a group of people that wouldn’t buy and couldn’t afford to buy them.

The performance range of both of them produce cars fast enough as it is. If they were to bring out an absolute monster, people would outrage over possible deaths/dangers etc. And it is still not financially viable. Holden’s HRT 427 had a purchase price of 200K, but was still not financially viable….and deposits were put down on all that were going to be made!

I still don’t understand how power/litre makes a motor more technologically advanced. It might be a factor, but it is not the whole comparison.

Ford and Holden don’t make performance cars. Why? Because there is no market. That’s why they are both profitable brands. They cater to the markets needs. The market is saturated with cheap performance cars (see WRX). Why bother trying to compete when they are market leaders in their own field? Local manufacturers don’t need to build performance cars to please a group of people that wouldn’t buy and couldn’t afford to buy them.

The performance range of both of them produce cars fast enough as it is. If they were to bring out an absolute monster, people would outrage over possible deaths/dangers etc. And it is still not financially viable. Holden’s HRT 427 had a purchase price of 200K, but was still not financially viable….and deposits were put down on all that were going to be made!

I still don’t understand how power/litre makes a motor more technologically advanced. It might be a factor, but it is not the whole comparison.

... What do u call HSV and FPV then? Ofcourse they make performance cars, im just saying they could do a better job at it.

No one would complain if they bought out a complete monster, because it would be few and far between thanks to the price. A car is only as safe as its driver.

Cheap performance cars? WRX? I dont know what u call cheap, but a WRX STI is like 60K and is right up there in the performance genre.

For the 3rd/4th time, i NEVER said power/litre makes a more more technoligically advanced. If you read way back to post 22, i state its more about WHEN it was released not how much power it made per litre or whatever.

Driver;

I doubt it, Holden and Ford only seem to be focused on making the cars they have now heavier and with bigger engines. The last project i heard holden to be doing was a AWD version of the CV8 Monaro. But like ive said already, at 1700KG+, why not spend that money in making it lighter, not awd.

Even if holden released a turbo, it would just be a turbo commodore. :throwup:

They wouldnt design a new car for it.

And so props to Nissan, They went bankrupt making the R32 GTR.

Now thats a company u can call the 'peoples' company. They spent so much time and money designing the best performance car for us, they almost went totally bankrupt.

And because of this, they have sold ridiculous amounts of skylines. The R34 GTRs first production line was completely sold before it even left the factory.

This is why me likey Nissan, and me dont likey Ford and Holden.

Atleast ford is breaking new ground with the XR6T. Hopefully it inspires something bigger in the future.

There definitely won’t be a turbo commodore for a long time. Cars are getting bigger. Not just local cars. Mid sized cars these days are family car size of the early 80’s. (New vectra is same size as early model commodore).

Nissan nearly went bankrupt producing the GTR? Why is that? Not economically viable. Large volume production lines producing limited run vehicles is financially inefficient. Nissan is a people’s company? What rubbish. Which car company isn’t?

How is ford breaking new ground? By putting a forced induction motor into their falcon? Holden have been doing it for years.

"Ford have at least utilised overhead cams / 4 valve technology, an intercooler..."

Now that is a good response to the technologically advanced debate.

Nothing wrong with pushrods though....but that is for another time.

The new HFV6 holden is producing has twin turbo capability. Wont happen (if ever) here for a long time, but Alfa Romeo produced a twin turbo variant.

Now that motor is quite advacned.

does any one know if ford made the new GT ute (you'd think not)with the turbo motor?? it just a bloke round the corner has either transplanted the xr6t motor into the GT shell or painted up the xr6t ute to look like the GT version?? i think hes pretty happy with it as he floggs the guts out of it

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

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...