Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Or do what the Japs did, run dual plenums, dual ICs.

That should help reduce the turbos "fighting" each other.

It's just like when you see two cocks in one box.. doesn't work too well, you need one in the pink and the other in the stink so noone is fighting for it.

My stance has been 1x hole 1x goal, ie single turbo!

IMG-20171013-WA0020.jpg.177c92320d571aec3b85d321b8c48607.jpg

  • Haha 1

I have no idea what those numbers mean.

The path ot successfully running twins has been shown numerous times. 

 

Have a sensible power goal, mild cams at the most, Twin Turbo pipe divider mod, good dumps/front pipe combo and don't use -5s if you value response. 

-9s with all of those bits will get you a healthy figure for the street. 

If you need the better high end power of -5s on a 2.6L and still want response, put a twin scroll single on it. 

What is your power goal?

Was going to say i get more boost sooner with my EFR but its got .2L and 260x11 cams behind it.


Glad i didnt install these on mine now. Will be interested seeing how old mate whos got them goes using the stock port shrouded front covers.

Bet ya glad ya listened now Pete? Twins in the bin single for the win ?

Wouldn't matter what cams or capacity the EFR still woulda knocked the snot out of those frankenfart twins.

At ANY power level! 

Edited by Mick_o
On 22.10.2017 at 5:29 AM, Roy said:

So what turbine is your rebuilt turbos running? Still the 2510 turbine or full GTX2863 core in HKS housings?

full GTX2860 core in HKS housings

If you're serious then you're going to need a very good single turbo, like an EFR, with proper twin scroll setup.

The only way you're getting that goal with twins is with a huge displacement increase.

The single turbo swap will be cheaper.

You're also going to want a few other mods so it can live for more than a few Dyno runs.

On 20.10.2017 at 12:07 AM, ActionDan said:

Have a sensible power goal, mild cams at the most, Twin Turbo pipe divider mod, good dumps/front pipe combo and don't use -5s if you value response. 

-9s with all of those bits will get you a healthy figure for the street. 

If you need the better high end power of -5s on a 2.6L and still want response, put a twin scroll single on it. 

When are -5s spooling? Can I get 600whp from them?

Edited by frakzz
11 hours ago, Piggaz said:

Is there a reason why you need to stay twins? Personal reason? Law enforcement? Because that's how Nissan wanted it? GTR's "must" have twins?

he was like Paul Version 1.0, twins, lag was life. Paul Version 2.0 is about usable power, better heat management and less homosexuality.

  • Like 1
21 hours ago, Piggaz said:

Is there a reason why you need to stay twins? Personal reason? Law enforcement? Because that's how Nissan wanted it? GTR's "must" have twins?

made a lot of things to make it convenient to service turbines

5b25e3e15e79t.jpg

Edited by frakzz

5s are f**ken shit! So are journal bearing turbos.

As above 8374 is an absolute beast of a turbo! 

If you want good power and response forget the twins! 

If you need the stock look so you dont get busted sure stay twins. But thats the ONLY reason to keep them!

21 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

A journal bearing twin scroll single turbo, I would dare say would perform better than a set of twins that produce like for like power output.

100% ?

Will only suck a dick between gears not everywhere like the 5s do!

Edited by Mick_o

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...