Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gzro said:

600atw would be nice and slightly more, activated via scramble boost when required would be great.

Feedback i have gotten so far is the 0.92 housing fits perfectly on a 2.6l but on a 2.8l with vcam, maybe i should be looking at something slightly bigger.  I already have the 8374 with 0.92 and getting the 1.05 housing alone is not worth it. 

So the option now is to stick with what i have or sell the 8374 and get the 9180 with 1.05 housing.  Cant remember where I read this but some posted that the response between the 2 are almost the same - maybe 500rpm difference?

 

I've got 8374 1.06 on a 2.6

For a 2.8L i'd def go 9180 1.05

  • Like 1
3 minutes ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

should be interesting to see the 8374/1.05  on a 3.2 with Vcam   handles it

Your goals are a little left to the "norm". Just need to keep an eye on speed.

  • Like 1

Already have the limiter at 7800 with the 6266 . I just feel if you are going early, you do not have to bash it past 6500 , horses for courses . I am busting to see just where it does get Asthma . Probably close to where it is now ?

Keep an eye on the road mate, not the speed. But that speed sensor you picked up for me will come in handy and may keep some moving parts out of the donk, lol

I think this will suit me just fine :w00t:

9 hours ago, usmair said:

By the way gents, I'm gonna cram another 3-4 psi into the 8374 towards June/July when the weather cools down

See if the stock bottom end can take it

Do it, just don't put too much timing towards and at peak torque. I would even take timing in the middle and ramp it once torque decays.

  • Like 1

What I was recommending is how to preserve the bottom end by limiting torque, so once you past peak torque you can go nuts with the boost and or timing to make the numbers.

This is a technique good EVO tuners use to stop the pencil conrods snapping with stock EVOs making 300kW+

20 hours ago, Nismo 3.2ish said:

should be interesting to see the 8374/1.05  on a 3.2 with Vcam   handles it

I will share some results of 8374 1.05 on a 3.2 for comparison. Pity we can't find a way to measure transient response because that seem's to be where these turbo's annihilate others on the market.

  • Like 2
6 hours ago, sneakey pete said:

Pfft, there's no fun in preserving anything though. Full boost as soon as possible, that's the only way!

ahh you see, if you pull timing you'll get boost even sooner with the expense of not reaching MBT for that RPM at that Load point..

4 hours ago, acsplit said:

I will share some results of 8374 1.05 on a 3.2 for comparison. Pity we can't find a way to measure transient response because that seem's to be where these turbo's annihilate others on the market.

Get ECU to log speed, rmp, boost and TPS over time, get to a speed and stand on the throttle.

53 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

ahh you see, if you pull timing you'll get boost even sooner with the expense of not reaching MBT for that RPM at that Load point..

Ah, thought timing helped with that.
That's why i pay someone to tune my car :P

Note to all.

Finally moved my cam gears on the dyno. Spent 4 hours there yesterday (on a dynocomm inertial - which will soon be eddy brake). I now see what a V-cam would do for you. Moving my Poncam A's closer together (ie-more overlap) yielded undeniable tq gains with no appreciable drop in top end power (my 3" exhaust could be holding me back). I think it liked 8 total degrees of CRANK overlap (2 notches off from '0' on each cam) the best (Advanced intake 4, Retarded exhaust 4), but we did run add another 2 deg (crank) to the intake to bring it to 6 deg intake advance and 4 deg exhaust advance and this is where it stayed (for now). Super choppy idle now, but damn this car pulls like CRAZY now. makes 3 more psi boost at 4k rpms. When I compared 20 psi runs with cams set at 0 the tq goes to the stratosphere. Look at the differences from 4500 rpms to 7k! At 22 psi high number is now 653 whp and 515 wtq but boost control was shakey on these runs (oscillating from 22 down to 18).

It is making 300 WHP at 4k rpms on 20 psi...on 93 octane pumpgas! This is my 8374 EFR .92 IWG on a stock-bore 79mm BC stroker FYI.

 

Just high numbers.jpg

Last dyno 20 psi cams set.jpg

Dyno Cam changes converted.JPG

  • Like 9
On 20.02.2017 at 2:59 PM, HarrisRacing said:

Note to all.

Finally moved my cam gears on the dyno. Spent 4 hours there yesterday (on a dynocomm inertial - which will soon be eddy brake). I now see what a V-cam would do for you. Moving my Poncam A's closer together (ie-more overlap) yielded undeniable tq gains with no appreciable drop in top end power (my 3" exhaust could be holding me back). I think it liked 8 total degrees of CRANK overlap (2 notches off from '0' on each cam) the best (Advanced intake 4, Retarded exhaust 4), but we did run add another 2 deg (crank) to the intake to bring it to 6 deg intake advance and 4 deg exhaust advance and this is where it stayed (for now). Super choppy idle now, but damn this car pulls like CRAZY now. makes 3 more psi boost at 4k rpms. When I compared 20 psi runs with cams set at 0 the tq goes to the stratosphere. Look at the differences from 4500 rpms to 7k! At 22 psi high number is now 653 whp and 515 wtq but boost control was shakey on these runs (oscillating from 22 down to 18).

It is making 300 WHP at 4k rpms on 20 psi...on 93 octane pumpgas! This is my 8374 EFR .92 IWG on a stock-bore 79mm BC stroker FYI.

 

Just high numbers.jpg

Last dyno 20 psi cams set.jpg

Dyno Cam changes converted.JPG

Power is WHP, so it's about 750HP on engine right? Awesome spool.

This is on 93 octane, what difference can be on 98 octane ? Better spool or power ?

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

    • Hi, SteveL Thank you very much for your reply, you seem to be the only person on the net who has come up with a definitive answer for which I am grateful. The "Leak" was more by way of wet bubbles when the pedal was depressed hard by a buddy while trying to gey a decent pedal when bleeding the system having fitted the rebuilt BM50 back in the car, which now makes perfect sense. A bit of a shame having just rebuilt my BM50, I did not touch the proportioning valve side of things, the BM50 was leaking from the primary piston seal and fluid was running down the the Brake booster hence the need to rebuild, I had never noticed any fluid leaking from that hole previously it only started when I refitted it to the car. The brake lines in the photo are "Kunifer" which is a Copper/Nickel alloy brake pipe, but are only the ones I use to bench bleed Master cylinders, they are perfectly legal to use on vehicles here in the UK, however the lines on the car are PVF coated steel. Thanks again for clearing this up for me, a purchase of a new BMC appears to be on the cards, I have been looking at various options in case my BM50 was not repairable and have looked at the HFM BM57 which I understand is manufactured in Australia.  
    • Well the install is officially done. Filled with fluid and bled it today, but didn't get a chance to take it on a test drive. I'll throw some final pics of the lines and whatnot but you can definitely install a DMAX rack in an R33 with pretty minor mods. I think the only other thing I had to do that isn't documented here is grind a bit of the larger banjo fitting to get it to clear since the banjos are grouped much tighter on the DMAX rack. Also the dust boots from a R33 do not fit either fyi, so if you end up doing this install for whatever reason you'll need to grab those too. One caveat with buying the S15 dust boots however is that the clamps are too small to fit on the R33 inner tie rod since they're much thicker so keep the old clamps around. The boots also twist a bit when adjusting toe but it's not a big deal. No issues or leaks so far, steering feels good and it looks like there's a bit more lock now than I had before. Getting an alignment on Saturday so I'll see how it feels then but seems like it'll be good to go       
    • I don't get in here much anymore but I can help you with this.   The hole is a vent (air relief) for the brake proportioning valve, which is built into the master cylinder.    The bad news is that if brake fluid is leaking from that hole then it's getting past the proportioning valve seals.   The really bad news is that no spare parts are available for the proportioning valve either from Nissan or after market.     It's a bit of a PITA getting the proportioning valve out of the master cylinder body anyway but, fortunately, leaks from that area are rare in my experience. BTW, if those are copper (as such) brake lines you should get rid of them.    Bundy (steel) tube is a far better choice (and legal  in Australia - if that's where you are).
×
×
  • Create New...