Jump to content
SAU Community

What turbos is this gtr running

vspecv

By vspecv,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

vspecv Proficient

vspecv

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I feel light headed, i need to sit down :D  

It makes that sort of power with that sort of response, at a little over 1.5bar. Im no expert but that is brilliant. Do you happen to know what cams and compression ratio the car is running... std stroke and no special fuel?

I notice that most dyno pritnouts with big numbers are usually concave curves, and doing the math, you get more urge if you reach the same number with a convex curve....

compression is standard i beleive, hks pistons.

cams hks step 2, 280/10.20mm

mobil synergy 8000 fuel

standard 2.6 stroke.

could prolly be improved with smaller cams around 260, but has a nice lumpy idle :wassup:

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Merli Grand Master

Merli

Posted
Posted
bah what, u want that dyno sheet aswell or should i take a photo of the guage :D  

mild port job

:wave: Nah dude, I believe you 100%... You don't strike me as the kind of person who would lie like that.

My point was that the airflow from that "23psi" would have been a LOT greater than on a standard engine... 280 degree cams, ported and polished head... That reduces the head restriction a LOT over a standard engine, so if you were to make the same power with the same turbo setup on a stock engine, it would require a lot more "boost pressure"...

My "bah" was mainly aimed at Roy's surprise that it was only using 23psi :wave: You have to take into account head work and big cams before being amazed at such a low boost pressure :(

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted
My "bah" was mainly aimed at Roy's surprise that it was only using 23psi :D You have to take into account head work and big cams before being amazed at such a low boost pressure :wave:

Even with head work and cams, thats not a lot of boost considering how its making its power.

I would have though a turbo that can provide 250rwkws at 4250rpm (good power for that rpm in my book) to have to run a lot of boost to march past 400rwkws

Even with cams/headwork etc, the inertia of turbines and compressor is what it is, and for a turbo to spin that well at moderate rpm, i would have assumed it wasnt that big a turbo, hence would need plenty of boost to make the sort of airflow for over 400rwkws....but it seems im wrong...since its got forgies stop playing games and give it 1.8bar :wave:

Merli Grand Master

Merli

Posted
Posted
Even with head work and cams, thats not a lot of boost considering how its making its power.  

I would have though a turbo that can provide 250rwkws at 4250rpm (good power for that rpm in my book) to have to run a lot of boost to march past 400rwkws

Even with cams/headwork etc, the inertia of turbines and compressor is what it is, and for a turbo to spin that well at moderate rpm, i would have assumed it wasnt that big a turbo, hence would need plenty of boost to make the sort of airflow for over 400rwkws....but it seems im wrong...since its got forgies stop playing games and give it 1.8bar ;)

I don't think you're quite getting the effect of headwork and 280 degree camshafts though :P

At the risk of treating you like a n00b (which obviously I know you're not), you have to remember that boost is just a measure of head restriction, NOT airflow.

Lets say that particular turbo kit needed to push 1200CFM of air through the motor to hit 417rwkw....

So if you strapped that entire turbo kit and accessories onto a stock motor, you will need to push 1200CFM of air through the engine to make the required power. This might equate to a 40psi (arbitrary value) head restriction to make that power.

But because this engine has had work to reduce the head restriction (and therefore improve the airflow through it), although the turbo is still pushing 1200CFM of air through the motor, you're only measuring a 23psi head restriction (commonly called "boost")...

"hence would need plenty of boost to make the sort of airflow for over 400rwkws...."

That doesn't really make sense... boost has nothing to do with airflow... It has everything to do with head restriction... You can have eleventy billion CFM of airflow and 1psi of "boost" if your head is good enough :)

Sorry if that's bleedingly obvious to you, I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here :)

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted

Yeh i understand what you are saying, my prob is i dont articulate myslef very well. :P

Even with cams/headwork etc, the inertia of turbines and compressor is what it is, and for a turbo to spin that well at moderate rpm, i would have assumed it wasnt that big a turbo....

Im using the term boost when i should probably be saying shaft speed. And for you to have sufficient shaft speed to generate enough airflow to make 250rwkws at 4250rpm, i would have thought the turbo has reasonably small wheels, meaning lower inertia and quicker accelerating turbo.

So my thinking was smaller the wheel the less cfm per revolution (ok it has a lot to with no. of blades, pitches of wheels etc etc). So i would have thought that to make 250rwks at 4250rpm then the compressor wheel is already got a few rpm on board, relativley small so not capable of providing huge amounts of airflow. The fact that it made another 170rwkws i would have thought the wheel speed would be thru the roof to flow that sort of extra cfm.

Is that making any more sense, wheel speed and boost are often thrown around with the same general meaning...typically higher wheel speed more cfm and subsequent boost as you are trying to squeese all those molecules into the same volume of space.

Merli Grand Master

Merli

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I understand what you're saying :) It's all Sydneykid's fault, he picked on us in another thread for misusing the term boost, and I've carried it over into this thread :P

And yeah, that is a very convex curve for a peak figure of 417rwkw... I'm also impressed ;)

vspecv Proficient

vspecv

Posted
  • Author
Posted

u guys are making my brain hurt.

to be honest, i probably am a bit of a noob when it comes to all the technical stuff and to be honest , i dont have the time nor the interest.

Find somebody competant who has the knowledge and who has done the r&d and use there expertise, most on here would know ben and prolly have heard of the garrets he uses, he has the big daddy on his r33 and leewah has the son of and i have the sister of.

i put my faith in him, as i know he will always steer me in the right direction, i do all the spanner work, but leave the brain work to others

we wanted to crank a bit more boost in, but detonation started to rear its ugly head and since this car will spend some time at the track, safe tune was paramount.

NRB Rising Star

NRB

Posted
Posted

Don't you mean the $5 a night slave does the spanner work? :P I think it's a very impressive graph and final figure Dean. I guess you'll be blasting past me when I (eventually) get out on the track again; it's been over 12 months.

I had a small chat to Ben about increased sump capacity, baffling and spun bearings today... a lot of the problems have stemmed from incorrect oil choice in the guys who've done the damage.

Sydneykid Grand Master

Sydneykid

Posted
Posted
It's all Sydneykid's fault, he picked on us in another thread for misusing the term boost, and I've carried it over into this thread

Oh yeah, it's always my fault:Paranoid:, go right ahead and put shyte on the guy who is simply trying to educate the unwashed. :bonk:

Even if they don't want to be educated :talk2hand

Roy Grand Master

Roy

Posted
Posted
to be honest, i probably am a bit of a noob when it comes to all the technical stuff and to be honest , i dont have the time nor the interest.

Find somebody competant who has the knowledge and who has done the r&d and use there expertise, most on here would know ben and prolly have heard of the garrets he uses ...

LOL sadly i cant afford such a toy so i have to enjoy just the nuts and bolts aspects of cars. :P , which thankfully i do.

"Ben" as in Race Pace?... apparantly he doesnt touch RB20s even if your a paying customer... it would be interesting to see him try and come up with a good Garret combo for a tweaked RB20, as obviously he has the RB25/26/30 recipe right.

Merli Grand Master

Merli

Posted
Posted
Don't you mean the $5 a night slave does the spanner work? :rofl: I think it's a very impressive graph and final figure Dean. I guess you'll be blasting past me when I (eventually) get out on the track again; it's been over 12 months.

I had a small chat to Ben about increased sump capacity, baffling and spun bearings today... a lot of the problems have stemmed from incorrect oil choice in the guys who've done  the damage.

Ooooh... interesting! ;)

Care to share what you learn't about oil choices with us? x.gif

vspecv Proficient

vspecv

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't you mean the $5 a night slave does the spanner work? :rofl: I think it's a very impressive graph and final figure Dean. I guess you'll be blasting past me when I (eventually) get out on the track again; it's been over 12 months.

I had a small chat to Ben about increased sump capacity, baffling and spun bearings today... a lot of the problems have stemmed from incorrect oil choice in the guys who've done  the damage.

are u serious, i will prolly have 3 more gtrs and a few porsches by the time u get to the track

Sydneykid Grand Master

Sydneykid

Posted
Posted
I had a small chat to Ben about increased sump capacity, baffling and spun bearings today... a lot of the problems have stemmed from incorrect oil choice in the guys who've done  the damage.

Sorry I personally don't agree, I have yet to see one single case of damaged bearings in a GTR as a result of the oil itself failing. They have all been oil surge and resulting starvation caused. I don't care what oil you use, if you don't baffle the sump and go on a circuit, you are at RISK. :D

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • GTSBoy
      DeAgostini 1/8 scale BNR32 Nissan Skyline GT-R Nismo

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      That's hilariously putrid!
    • GTSBoy
      R33 Fuel Pump & Brakes after alarm swap

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...