Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

Ive just finished my single turbo conversion in my r33 gtr and had it tuned a few weeks back. It made 350rwkw on 23.5 psi of boost through a gt3582r. To be completerly honest i was expecting something a little closer to the 400kw region. Ill list out my mods and maybe a few helpful members with experience using these turbos can shed some light.

-garrett gt3582r t3 with .82 exhuast housing

-4 inch dump into 3.5 inch straight through exhuast system using a straight through magnaflow muffler

-custom made manifold (seems quite strong and well made) no cracks ect

-tial 44mm gate with screamer

-100mm tube and fit autobahn88 intercooler

-2000cc xpurt injectors with a walbro 460, no fuel reg.

-adaptronic ecu using map sensor

Is there anything you would look at that could be restricting me?

I guess your fuel pressure is whatever your pumps can make and then it drops off as boost rises which seems the wrong way round. Do you have a rationale for this? I would guess it would make it harder to tune?

I presume you have looked through the RB26 turbo upgrade thread but the people making more power either have better turbos or if they have GT35s have some or all of: 6 boost manifolds, stronger valve springs, headwork, bigger cams, adjustable cams gears, E85, higher compression, G4 ECU, and in most if not all cases fuel pressure regulators!

I have a GT35 on my RB30 making only 314AWKW and I think my main problem is very low CR - possibly 8:1 or less.

Pressure test the inlet system for leaks.

Any idea if it likes ignition advance, or has it hit a plateau where more timing doesn't make more power?

How is the fit of manifold to head, and turbo to manifold? Any sharp ledges that will affect flow?

How is the pipework for both I/C and exhaust? Well designed and made, nice bends, minimum of protruding welds into the air/gas paths to upset flow?

Spec and condition of cat?

Spec and condition of filter?

Pressure test the inlet system for leaks. We smoke tested it before throwing it on the dyno, no leaks we could find.

Any idea if it likes ignition advance, or has it hit a plateau where more timing doesn't make more power? No clue, i will have to find more out from the tuner regarding this.

How is the fit of manifold to head, and turbo to manifold? Any sharp ledges that will affect flow? It all looks to be pretty god in that department and nothig i could see causing a restriction there.

How is the pipework for both I/C and exhaust? Well designed and made, nice bends, minimum of protruding welds into the air/gas paths to upset flow? All the cooler piping is 3 inch and the only charp bend is a 90 degree silicone joiner coming directly off of the turbo. The exhuast system expands from 2.5 4 bolt flange at the turbo to a 4 inch dump and reduces to 3.5 inch where the cat would be all the way back into a rear muffler.

Spec and condition of cat? No cat

Spec and condition of filter? its a large K&N pod filter, i cant see that posing any restrictions as its 4 inch right up until the turbo intake.

Everyone I know with any similar kind of setup has cams, and often additional head work - I'm not 100% sure what to expect with stock cams but I know those guys have had decent gains by doing the cams which makes me think it could be at least a contributing factor.

yea, this is what we have been looking at. Alot of the dyno results i have found using this turbo have upgraded cams but they seem to be in the low 4's. I am quite certain i will be throwing in some type b poncams very soon so it will be interesting to see how much extra we can make. From my comparisons, it also seems to maybe be coming on boost a little late for a .82 housing. I will have to look into this further.

thats the kinda power it should be making on 98...3582r .82 rear housing.... about 350ish... even more ive reached 365+ with that turbo... on 98 octane.

something is not right.

Well the first think im going to check is going to be compression. I did one when i purchased the car and it was perfect. Every cylinder was around 16X from memory. Its been about 10000kms and 3 years since. The only other things i can think of would be a small boost leak somewhere or a gasket getting in the way.

My 32R made 510hp at the rear on a hub dyno with pretty minimal mods;

-Std bottom end

-3582r

-260 degree Poncams

-350lph walbro

-Haltech

-1000CC injectors

-manifold nothing special

-std intercooler

-3" turbo back exhaust

Thats about it really, made that power on 19psi, 98 octane.

Without cams I believe 350kw to be normal.

With cams I would expect a maximum of 380kw on 98.

DVS JEZ dyno is on par with Unigroup, which is known to be very shy on numbers. I believe you are on par for where you should be.

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 know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...