Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lithium said:

Nice work, congrats on the result and cheers for sharing - have been pretty sure that it should be able to make more even with that housing.   Looks like a nice fun delivery too, glad its making more the kind of power it should be now :)

Thanks !  I really appreciate your insight. I need to get into measuring EMAP to understand more of what you say and improve my experience.

On 4/13/2023 at 7:59 AM, hattori hanzo said:

chuck a bigger rear housing on it as well and i feel you will gain more everywhere again particularly if on E85 

I'd love to do this comparison but not a cheap one given the cost of a rear housing and dyno time.  I should say as above not really chasing more power at this stage. One day I will hopefully go 2.8 and then a larger rear will be worthwhile to get more out of it. I think that was really what I wanted to prove here is with a built bottom end, is 850 rear a real goal with this turbo.  Seemed a long long way of before. 

  • Like 2

Here's my results from a G30-900 (1.01) on my RB26.

Pretty impressive for such low boost I thought but it's already at the end of it's efficiency..

Still, more than enough for what is predominantly a street car...

thumbnail_IMG_6264.jpg

  • Like 3
5 minutes ago, mr_rbman said:

Here's my results from a G30-900 (1.01) on my RB26.

Pretty impressive for such low boost I thought but it's already at the end of it's efficiency..

Still, more than enough for what is predominantly a street car...

thumbnail_IMG_6264.jpg

Solid, a bit hard to tell much from the info though - no rpm scale or anything.  What fuel is this, and the rest of the setup?   Hub dyno?   What does it spool/drive like?

 

  • Like 1
Just now, Lithium said:

Solid, a bit hard to tell much from the info though - no rpm scale or anything.  What fuel is this, and the rest of the setup?   Hub dyno?   What does it spool/drive like?

 

Ah yes, sorry Lith, forget not everyone obviously knows my car....

 

Tuner couldn't get the graph to print with RPM scale so he's sending it to me when he sorts it...

This is E85 (actually E79), relatively basic forged typical RB26.

Link ECU

Kelford cams 264 degree (8.9mm lift)

Plazmaman 76mm intercooler

Artec V-band manifold

G30-900 (1.01) V-band

45mm Turbosmart gate

 

I've come from a twin setup (custom -7's) making roughly 40-50kws less, there is no denying it's better in every way..

I was impressed and happy with my twin setup and only removed as I had issues with the rear one otherwise i probably would've kept them

This combo makes all the right sounds and the things like transient response etc is what i love about this current setup...

 

 

  • Like 2

Does anyone know if a G30-770 would fit in the stock location on an RB25 on an R34 GTT? Because I can get a rear housing that will allow it to bolt up, but I wonder if there’s enough space due to its overall larger size. A GTX3076 will fit, but the G30-770 is slightly larger in length and in diameter of the compressor housing.

On 22/04/2023 at 8:07 AM, smashmiek said:

Does anyone know if a G30-770 would fit in the stock location on an RB25 on an R34 GTT? Because I can get a rear housing that will allow it to bolt up, but I wonder if there’s enough space due to its overall larger size. A GTX3076 will fit, but the G30-770 is slightly larger in length and in diameter of the compressor housing.

Just get a spacer if you're worried.

6 hours ago, Super Drager said:

Just get a spacer if you're worried.

Less the spacer issue, more the space under there issue. Sounds like you’re implying that fouling on the manifold is the main thing to worry about? Hence the spacer?

just fit the gtx3076r if you know if fits, this line of g series with a big number at the end is all marketing, it will make 770 on a huge engine with the largest t4 rear housing, but on a 2.5 t3 it will make the same as a gtx maybe spool slightly earlier for lots more $.

  • Thanks 1
  • 1 month later...

Hi Guys, 

Recently fitted a g35-1050- 1.01 rear to my 25-30neo. The car made 649hp @30-32psi through an auto on mainline hub dyno. 98 with direct port WMI- Only e85 in drums where I am.

The car had previously made 530hp on a dynapack hub dyno and different converter with a gen 1 gt35- .82 rear and 3-inch dump. Will be racing it soon to see the difference. 

Specs of the motor are Built bottom, stock head with springs and 270 9.2 mm cam-tech cams, 4-inch dump down to 3-inch under the car and plumbed back gate. 

I was hoping for a little more like 750 or somewhere around there out of the g35 but maybe I'm dreaming. 

Seriously considering selling the g35 and manifold and going for a G40-1150. 
1- would the gains be decent? Also will be going from a t3 to a t4 divided manifold 

2- What rear housing would you recommend, ( I was thinking .95) 

2 hours ago, Huzqld said:

Hi Guys, 

Recently fitted a g35-1050- 1.01 rear to my 25-30neo. The car made 649hp @30-32psi through an auto on mainline hub dyno. 98 with direct port WMI- Only e85 in drums where I am.

The car had previously made 530hp on a dynapack hub dyno and different converter with a gen 1 gt35- .82 rear and 3-inch dump. Will be racing it soon to see the difference. 

Specs of the motor are Built bottom, stock head with springs and 270 9.2 mm cam-tech cams, 4-inch dump down to 3-inch under the car and plumbed back gate. 

I was hoping for a little more like 750 or somewhere around there out of the g35 but maybe I'm dreaming. 

Seriously considering selling the g35 and manifold and going for a G40-1150. 
1- would the gains be decent? Also will be going from a t3 to a t4 divided manifold 

2- What rear housing would you recommend, ( I was thinking .95) 

 

*Not saying this is your issue. But one page back I posted this. 

I was hitting a wall at low 700s.  g35-1050 .83 - 4inch dump, 3inch exhaust. 

Swapped to 4inch exhaust and it picked up heaps and had scope for more ! 

This is the back to back 

image.png.08ae4cae0917e60f93cb2b53f9c631c9.png

  • Like 4
On 06/06/2023 at 11:20 PM, Huzqld said:

Recently fitted a g35-1050- 1.01 rear to my 25-30neo. The car made 649hp @30-32psi through an auto on mainline hub dyno. 98 with direct port WMI- Only e85 in drums where I am.

The car had previously made 530hp on a dynapack hub dyno and different converter with a gen 1 gt35- .82 rear and 3-inch dump. Will be racing it soon to see the difference. 

Specs of the motor are Built bottom, stock head with springs and 270 9.2 mm cam-tech cams, 4-inch dump down to 3-inch under the car and plumbed back gate. 

I was hoping for a little more like 750 or somewhere around there out of the g35 but maybe I'm dreaming. 

Seriously considering selling the g35 and manifold and going for a G40-1150. 
1- would the gains be decent? Also will be going from a t3 to a t4 divided manifold 

2- What rear housing would you recommend, ( I was thinking .95) 

Ahhh the joys.  I'm not going to make any assumptions on what you've tried or thought of, so just going to dump some thoughts haha.

First area to consider, comparing the actual dyno results it's worth trying to see the wood for the trees

  1. Autos are a headfk when doing dyno testing at the best of times.  For the last few years I've been tuning a mates Toyota he dragraces - it had been running a 1.5litre 4cylinder turbo engine through a 5-speed manual and got it down to the mid 10s before the W58s became an item to be replaced every meet.  To resolve the issue he chose violence, and dropped a 2JZGE (with added Pulsar G35 900) onto the side of it and attached a Powerglide to it to get it running.  It took him the whole offseason to do all that work and ultimately got it to a point it was able to start and run with the old diff he had with the W58, and the fuel pump setup for the 4cylinder.

    The 10.58 @ 131mph he achieved was 320rwkw with the dyno we use for this car, fuel pressure all looked sweet... however with the 2JZ the same fuel pump setup was dropping pressure badly at only 286rwkw.   All indications were the it was swallowing heaps of more air than the old 1.5 even though it was running VERY little boost and the power was much lower, but the airflow / fuel flow numbers otherwise appeared to be adding up correctly.  Seemed to be happy and healthy so we figured just get it to the strip and do some shake downs.

    Long story short, despite the new engine/gearbox combo likely adding 100kg odd to the weight of the car and making less power on the dyno we ended up coaxing it down to a 9.78 @ 138mph (crossing the finish line on the limiter because out of gearing).  Heavier car with less measured power.   Of course there are other variables at play, but at the end of the day the fuel flow and the MPH vs weight suggest the thing was making a significant amount more power than it was with the 4cylinder.   Autos do weird shit.
     
  2. Comparing two different dynos isn't going to help the comparison
     
  3. As per our experience, sometimes the dragstrip can give you more of an idea than the dyno will when autos are involved.   Maybe worth driving it or getting it down the strip before making any hasty calls - may turn out to be combo that works better than how the dyno number makes you feel.

Second major thing to consider which kinda branches from the first is that when choosing a turbo you have to work out how much airflow you need, or maybe more to the point - are actually going to be making decent use of and is going to suit your setup:

  1. The whole topic is one you should be discussing with your tuner, but this would be the most poignant one - what held you back from making more power?   98+WMI is arguably a lot less potent a fuel than E85 etc, depending on the blend and how your tuner has chosen to use it.   If for some reason "all the timing" that the engine needs to make optimal use the air/fuel mix in there hasn't been dialled in then you potentially have a turbo capable of making more power than it is if the fuel (or the tuner's confidence in it) isn't there.     It's worth knowing if part of the reason the power isn't as high as expected is because the tuner hasn't been able to lean on it and there is power on the table with higher octane fuel, as if there is then a turbo upgrade may not get the significant gains you're hoping for as the turbo may not have been the key limitation at this point.   I'm not saying this is the case, I don't have the data to know it but plenty of people have been in this kind of situation and done a turbo upgrade with underwhelming results because of this kind of reason.   
     
  2. As @GTSBoyindicated, data is king.  If you had turbo speed/emap/whatever data you'd be in a much better position to estimate yourself how responsible the turbo itself is for limiting power - ie, if the airflow is there or not.  Bare in mind, the EMAP or turbo speed being high just means your turbo isn't going to be able to give you more air... if the tune is held back at all (refer point 1) then it could still mean better octane fuel would be money better spent than a turbo upgrade.   Worth speaking to tuner if you want to get an idea of where things are at there if you have any doubt of that, you may gain more power per psi with a bigger turbo but if you want a significant amount more power then more boost is probably going to be necessary to get the extra airflow which is pointless if your tuner isn't happy with the fuel you're using at that point.

Now to actually TL;DR answer to your questions:

1) See how it drives and how it goes on the track before getting too concerned about power figures - esp. when you get an auto involved.  650whp through an auto could be a much faster car than you're expecting it to be, maybe.  Turbo may or may not be tapped out but because of how hard the tuner is pushing it and how the auto is delivering that to the wheels its hard to know how much to blame the turbo for the 650whp figure.  This will put you in a better position to decide whether upgrade to the G40 is going to be worthwhile.

2) Housing will depend on how concerned about lag you're going to be.  I'd be tempted to swing the .95 if you are concerned at all but if you're trying to make a big step up in power it's probably worth not being shy.

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 3
16 hours ago, Huzqld said:

Thanks guys, 

I have been thinking emap, but haven't had a chance to measure yet. Here's a pic of the dyno readout, sorry about the crappy quality 

 

Looks to be carrying power reasonably well, the boost control solenoid duty cycle can often paint a picture of EMAP.  If the duty cycle is picking up a lot through the rpm range then EMAP is likely to be running away - if you're holding fairly steady WGDC....so if you hit target boost at 4500rpm and it stays at a fixed duty cycle area from there until 7500rpm to hold the same boost then EMAP probably isn't out of control.  If it gains 10+% then it probably is.  Reason is here is you're having to compensate for the raising exhaust pressure against the wastegate valve

Edited by Lithium
On 4/22/2023 at 7:37 AM, smashmiek said:

Does anyone know if a G30-770 would fit in the stock location on an RB25 on an R34 GTT? Because I can get a rear housing that will allow it to bolt up, but I wonder if there’s enough space due to its overall larger size. A GTX3076 will fit, but the G30-770 is slightly larger in length and in diameter of the compressor housing.

Pulsar G30-770 in an R33, 10mm spacer. IWG bracket needs to be modified as the one supplied won't clear the strut tower.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.43549a5db8248710a4a4c55c580d9023.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • 4 weeks later...
On 14/6/2023 at 2:58 PM, nicr4wks said:

Pulsar G30-770 in an R33, 10mm spacer. IWG bracket needs to be modified as the one supplied won't clear the strut tower.

 

image.thumb.jpeg.43549a5db8248710a4a4c55c580d9023.jpeg

Legendary, thank you. Have you got it running? How’s it going for you?

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

    • Next on the to-do list was an oil and filter change. Nothing exciting to add here except the oil filter is in a really stupid place (facing the engine mount/subframe/steering rack). GReddy do a relocation kit which puts it towards the gearbox, I would have preferred towards the front but there's obviously a lot more stuff there. Something I'll have to look at for the next service perhaps. First time using Valvoline oil, although I can't see it being any different to most other brands Nice... The oil filter location... At least the subframe wont rust any time soon I picked up a genuine fuel filter, this is part of the fuel pump assembly inside the fuel tank. Access can be found underneath the rear seat, you'll see this triangular cover Remove the 3x plastic 10mm nuts and lift the cover up, pushing the rubber grommet through The yellow fuel line clips push out in opposite directions, remove these completely. The two moulded fuel lines can now pull upwards to disconnect, along with the wire electrical plug. There's 8x 8mm bolts that secure the black retaining ring. The fuel pump assembly is now ready to lift out. Be mindful of the fuel hose on the side, the hose clamp on mine was catching the hose preventing it from lifting up The fuel pump/filter has an upper and lower section held on by 4 pressure clips. These did take a little bit of force, it sounded like the plastic tabs were going to break but they didn't (don't worry!) The lower section helps mount the fuel pump, there's a circular rubber gasket/grommet/seal thing on the bottom where the sock is. Undo the hose clip on the short fuel hose on the side to disconnect it from the 3 way distribution pipe to be able to lift the upper half away. Don't forget to unplug the fuel pump too! There's a few rubber O rings that will need transferring to the new filter housing, I show these in the video at the bottom of this write up. Reassembly is the reverse Here's a photo of the new filter installed, you'll be able to see where the tabs are more clearing against the yellow OEM plastic Once the assembly is re-installed, I turned the engine over a few times to help build up fuel pressure. I did panic when the car stopped turning over but I could hear the fuel pump making a noise. It eventually started and has been fine since. Found my 'lucky' coin underneath the rear seat too The Youtube video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLJ65pmQt44&t=6s
    • It was picked up on the MOT/Inspection that the offside front wheel bearing had excessive play along with the ball joint. It made sense to do both sides so I sourced a pair of spare IS200 hubs to do the swap. Unfortunately I don't have any photos of the strip down but here's a quick run down. On the back of the hub is a large circular dust cover, using a flat head screw driver and a mallet I prised it off. Underneath will reveal a 32mm hub nut (impact gun recommended). With the hub nut removed the ABS ring can be removed (I ended up using a magnetic pick up tool to help). Next up is to remove the stub axle, this was a little trickier due to limited tools. I tried a 3 leg puller but the gap between the hub and stub axle wasn't enough for the legs to get in and under. Next option was a lump hammer and someone pulling the stub axle at the same time. After a few heavy hits it released. The lower bearing race had seized itself onto the stub axle, which was fine because I was replacing them anyway. With the upper bearing race removed and the grease cleaned off they looked like this The left one looked pristine inside but gave us the most trouble. The right one had some surface rust but came apart in a single hit, figure that out?! I got a local garage to press the new wheel bearings in, reassemble was the opposite and didn't take long at all. Removing the hub itself was simple. Starting with removing the brake caliper, 2x 14mm bolts for the caliper slider and 2x 19mm? for the carrier > hub bolts. I used a cable tie to secure the caliper to the upper arm so it was out of the way, there's a 10mm bolt securing the ABS sensor on. With the brake disc removed from the hub next are the three castle nuts for the upper and lower ball joints and track rod end. Two of these had their own R clip and one split pin. A few hits with the hammer and they're released (I left the castle nuts on by a couple of turns), the track rod ends gave me the most grief and I may have nipped the boots (oops). Fitting is the reversal and is very quick and easy to do. The lower ball joints are held onto the hub by 2x 17mm bolts. The castle nut did increase in socket size to 22mm from memory (this may vary from supplier) The two front tyres weren't in great condition, so I had those replaced with some budget tyres for the time being. I'll be replacing the wheels and tyres in the future, this was to get me on the road without the worry of the police hassling me.
    • Yep, the closest base tune available was for the GTT, I went with that and made all the logical changes I could find to convert it to Naturally Aspirated. It will rev fine in Neutral to redline but it will be cutting nearly 50% fuel the whole way.  If I let it tune the fuel map to start with that much less fuel it wont run right and has a hard time applying corrections.  These 50% cuts are with a fuel map already about half of what the GTT tune had.  I was having a whole lot of bogging when applying any throttle but seem to have fixed that for no load situations with very aggressive transient throttle settings. I made the corrections to my injectors with data I found for them online, FBCJC100 flowing 306cc.  I'll have to look to see if I can find the Cam section. I have the Bosch 4.9 from Haltech. My manifold pressure when watching it live is always in -5.9 psi/inHg
    • Hi My Tokico BM50 Brake master cylinder has a leak from the hole between the two outlets (M10x1) for brake pipes, I have attached a photo. Can anyone tell me what that hole is and what has failed to allow brake fluid to escape from it, I have looked on line and asked questions on UK forums but can not find the answer, if anyone can enlighten me I would be most grateful.
    • It will be a software setting. I don't believe many on here ever used AEM. And they're now a discontinued product,that's really hard to find any easy answers on. If it were Link or Haltech, someone would be able to just send you a ECU file though.
×
×
  • Create New...