Educated Guess At The Final Tune Results

[Nismo 3.2ish]

You have 2 answers thus far for you boost tapering off.

1) Turbo is to small for the 3.2L

2) You are running out of spark

Im going for 2

#2 . Paul said that before I posted these results..

Do you think the turbo is really too small if I do not care about top end, I thought it would shit it in to go 550HP ish with the cams dialed in for response.

It looks like the intake cam may be retarded , that is if I understood what was said to me maybe I will find out tomorrow.

The trouble is, some blokes think I am after more KWs, I only talk about it as a reference point because most do. Since I posted the first tune , most expected more KWs ( I guess I did as well but I am a beginner but I did expect it to get going earlier .

Before someone tells me buy a different car! I love my R and love driving it, just want more of what I got. I probably do more Klms than most and truly get my monies worth

What I find funny on forums, if you are chasing HP far beyond your mods , it is OK and blokes say just keep trying. But go for response , your a dick head for wanting it and go buy a V8. well I will go for the DH of the year award and loving it, haha

[Hadouken]

Hmmm...

I bet you have great response looking at the results, but I think you mentioned a day or so ago that you wanted more response....

That is where I think you are starting to be unrealistic and you are wanting something that this car/setup cannot give you. This is why I said you should get a v8.

[AngryRB]

I think they've done as good as they can with 98, if you ran some E85 I think you'd get what your looking for.. you'd have 40 or more killawasps more from 4000rpm and a more lively bottom end, probably 450kw's at top end and be happy... just have to buy some E85 once a month..

[XGTRX]

You have 2 answers thus far for you boost tapering off.

1) Turbo is to small for the 3.2L

2) You are running out of spark

Im going for 2

My bets are on 1.

Or maybe 2 because of 1.

No one is calling you a DH Pete. You are asking questions and people are giving you answers. In a perfect world everyone would want maximum response and maximum power, in the real world the choice is always a compromise.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

I am calling myself a DH too, there are too many blokes that know these cars that say that I have got as much as you can out of it and it is probably true.

Maybe I just watched too many Vids of 1/4s, hill climbs,track and never took any notice how these cars get going, revs !

It is still the best car I have owned to drive

[AngryRB]

tuning on 98 is different world to E85 though, the magic happens with E85...

[jangles]

Top setting was 22psi before this tune. But running on 22psi it went tits up at around 6000rpm.

Now it went to 24psi @ 4500rpm before it tapered off to 18.5 @ 7000 ( I think the 381.7 kw was around 7k , the private road I used would not let me go to 7k in 5th gear, just squeezed in 4500rpm, too short) Not sure if it is actually set at 24psi, just going off what I can see on the dyno chart before it dropped off.

There is no harm in having a guess at what is going on here and in about a month there might be some answers, could be better, or worse ??????

My boost tapers off on paper too.

My speed doesn't when I'm driving.

[luke gtr]

You forgot to say what size the turbo was.

I didn't forget.

the response was to power/ boost and 98.

But, since you asked, a China gt42.

[QUP29]

CRD time attack bnr34 supporting a stroker 2.7 precision 6466, is that a responsive setup?

[Piggaz]

CRD time attack bnr34 supporting a stroker 2.7 precision 6466, is that a responsive setup?

TOTALLY different car to what ol Pete wants. Don't you think?

[XGTRX]

CRD time attack bnr34 supporting a stroker 2.7 precision 6466, is that a responsive setup?

I would say a 3.2 would spool that up a lot quicker and a power would reach for the stars.

Do you know what rear AR you have Pete? Please don't say you have a 0.6ish.

[Piggaz]

It was a 0.84 but there was talk of it being swapped for a 1.00. Never really confirmed though.

[Nismo 3.2ish]

It was a 0.84 but there was talk of it being swapped for a 1.00. Never really confirmed though.

Well I did not expect you up this early, stay home ?

I think there was a .6 something and was changed to the .82 or 4 ?

[QUP29]

TOTALLY different car to what ol Pete wants. Don't you think?

yeah your probably right, Pete would want boost happening at 2000rpm. but I'm biase as I have a sweet spot for the 6466

[SiR_RB]

You have a 3.2L

I would be putting on a slightly bigger rear on the 6262

[Sub Boy32]

After a big read of most of this thread I would say the turbo is too small for the 3.2lt Pete.

My car has the same problem making the max power, we had to reduce the boost in the top end.....however I also would have thought it would have made a bit more than that, my turbo is only a little bigger than yours (8374 0.92 EFR) and I managed 80kw more on 98 octane.

Have they done a back pressure test, this would tell you if you have a restriction from the small exhaust housing?

What I couldn't find is what revs it is at full boost (22psi)?

[Nismo 3.2ish]

After a big read of most of this thread I would say the turbo is too small for the 3.2lt Pete.

My car has the same problem making the max power, we had to reduce the boost in the top end.....however I also would have thought it would have made a bit more than that, my turbo is only a little bigger than yours (8374 0.92 EFR) and I managed 80kw more on 98 octane.

Have they done a back pressure test, this would tell you if you have a restriction from the small exhaust housing?

What I couldn't find is what revs it is at full boost (22psi)?

It has no full boost at 22psi, it drops off at 4500rpm to 18.5 psi at full boost at about 7000rpm

[Lithium]

Subboy- I suspect your car on a Dyno Dynamics would be doing well to go over 420wkw so the power difference is not quite as substantial, and the effect of a smaller turbine (yours would be more comparable to a 6266 - which btw would be far more suitable on this regardless) would be pretty substantial on a 3.2 litre.

It would be nice if there was communication from the tuner on why the drop back in boost but it seems on the fringe of plausible that it could be a contributing factor to it maybe not making quite as much as what one would think could be doable.

No matter what it's clearly a very impressive pump gas weapon and nice to think there is potentially gains to be had with further optimisation

[Sub Boy32]

Subboy- I suspect your car on a Dyno Dynamics would be doing well to go over 420wkw so the power difference is not quite as substantial, and the effect of a smaller turbine (yours would be more comparable to a 6266 - which btw would be far more suitable on this regardless) would be pretty substantial on a 3.2 litre.

It would be nice if there was communication from the tuner on why the drop back in boost but it seems on the fringe of plausible that it could be a contributing factor to it maybe not making quite as much as what one would think could be doable.

No matter what it's clearly a very impressive pump gas weapon and nice to think there is potentially gains to be had with further optimisation

Had my car on a Dyno Dynamics on another local tuners.....it made 458kw so not much different than the 467kw it made on the Hub Dyno.

[Sub Boy32]

......so do we have a boost graph anywhere for it?