Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've recently converted my skyline to united e85.

Had the car tuned and the result was 410hp at 18psi.

The tuner had stated that he couldn't put any more boost in because of valve float.

So I had some performance springs valve springs installed.

Had the car retuned and the result was 437hp at 23/22psi

The tuner had stated that the car still had valve float above this level.

He asked what springs installed and commented that they're not up to the task and had seen many customers have similar problems.

Raising the boost would not effect the power curve and estimated power figure not reached.

I'm disappointed with the situation and would like to know what you guys think?

Should I change springs again?

Should I change dyno operator?

Is this a below average outcome for my setup?

Is this valve floating?

Mods include but not limited too:

Garrett Gt3076r t3 .70 comp .82ar ex wg

3.5 inch exhaust

100mm thick cooler 3in piping

China ffp

Standard throttle body

Walbro 460

Id1000

Mls head gasket

Wolf 3d v5

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/453567-valve-float-next-step/
Share on other sites

I would have thought that >300 rwkW on a 3076 on E85 was getting close to the full potential of the turbo.

I would wait for the advice of others with more experience with those turbos before taking anything I said about it to heart though.

The other thing that occurs to me, now that you have posted up those dyno charts, is that there doesn't seem to be any giveaway of valve float showing up in the curves. Usually when they start to float you at least see some sort of upset in the curve. I'd be asking your tuner what signs or behaviours he is using to tell him that it's floating.

It's a rb25 series 1

I agree that the curve doesn't show a typical valve float situation.

The tuner stated that as he tried adding boost in the higher rpm range the curve stayed the same as you can see in the graph.

He said swapping the springs for supertech would fix it and show a big increase in power.

I'm just skeptical having already spent a bit of coin.

Edited by BEN 0

I was of the impression that the GT series tend to, well.. die in the ass after about 22-23PSI on a RB

In other words moar boost = no moar power.

This was the impression I got when reading about the GT3076 when compared to GTX3076, in that the GTX series continue making power under more boost after the GT series has stopped making gains.

There is a good chance that the valve seats have been cut and all the japanese branded valve springs don't have enough tension if the seats have been cut. i have seen this issue arise on 3 different RB engines (2x26s and a 25) all 3 upgraded to super tech to fix the issue and have shown great results

Higher lift would make it worse, one car was bad enough he couldn't get it to rev cleanly, it was almost as if it was hitting a rev limiter at random spots in the rev range. Changed springs and pulled over 450kw at the wheels

  On 06/02/2015 at 7:01 AM, BEN 0 said:

That's very interesting Brett, thanks for you input.

If you can remember, how big were the gains on the setups you seen?

Would changing to higher lift camshafts help with the spring situation?

How big of gains regarding what exactly?

As Brett said, shoving higher lift bump sticks in there won't be doing any favours unless you get a decent spring in there.

Was just trying to gauge the difference in performance by changing the springs.

Just need to weigh up the options with my goals. Would like to reach 500hp.

Replace springs and retune

Replace springs and cams and retune

Replace springs and turbo to GTX

???

I see, if there is a better option feel free to let me know.

The tuner recommended super tech, from doing a search it seems they only make a single spring to suit hydraulic rb25

part no. SPRK-2081/rb25

Ferrea do a dual spring for hydraulic with slightly better specs

part no. S10112-24

Would either of this be the right choice?

What camshaft have you got in there? I highly doubt you'll need a duel spring!

If you keep it at say 20% throttle, will it rev out to 7000 rpm without it doing it's thing?

If you give it more boost, does it do it's "thing" earlier?

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

    • Great interview on damper settings and coil selection by HPA https://www.facebook.com/HPAcademy/videos/30284693841175196/?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e
    • Yeah, it was a pretty deep dig.
    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...