Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

my goal is to break 500whp yet still be a weekend driver

What i have

greedy FMIC

Apexi power intake kit

Tein coilovers and dampener kit

52mill radiator  

Parts list.

Q45 Airflow meter $100-150

Plenum , fuel rail, throttle body $1000 (for engine clean up only minimal performance increase)

Walbro 400LPH $200

ECU I have a haltech platinum Pro ecu kit, let me know if I should upgrade this to make 500hp (370rwkw)

Injectors 1000cc $1000-$1100

Carbon clutch twin plate with flywheel $2500 (for $300-500 more but can handle upto 800 hp, if anyone gets a gtt to 800 please fill out your will)

Camsharft poncam type b $700

Cam pullys $350

And the big one GT35R turbo kit $4200

Whiteline sway bars $700

any tips or advice or different products i should buy? 

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/474474-r34-gtt-parts-list/
Share on other sites

ECU will be fine.  You might consider that the best way to make 500rwkW will be with E85, in which case you would require larger injectors.  Not to mention some serious fuel pump + wiring.  A single Walbro 400 will be teetering on the edge on 98, let alone on pineapple juice.

Poncams are shit.  Think about getting something with more lift.  While on the topic, seriously think about a decent port job.  That's free power right there.

GT35R.  Um.  How about something with a T4 flange and a Borg Warner badge?  Top mount manifold, big external gate, big dump pipe and at least a MAC valve required for boost control here.

You will probably run out of spark before you get there. So budget for an ignition upgrade too.  At least some new stockers/Splitfires, but better option would be a pencil coil of some sort (Yaris/Celica/Audi/R35GTR, etc).

  • Like 1

Yuh.  Simple rule of thumb.  On petrol, on a 6 cylinder engine, each cc of capacity of a single injector is approximately 1HP.  1000cc -> ~1000HP. At the flywheel.  You take ~75% of that for conversion to kW.  So, 750kW.  You take 75% of that to account for typical* 25% chassis dyno losses, and 750 engine kW becomes ~560rwkW.  You need at least 30% extra fuel when running E85, so divide 560 by 1.3 to get a rough guide to how much power you can squeeze from 1000cc injectors on E85....It's only ~430.  A long way from 500.

* Aussie Dyno Dynamics dynos seem to throw about that much power into the air.  US dynos read higher fractions of the engine power.  Other countries/brands may be just about anywhere.

Now, keep in mind that the injector rule of thumb and the dyno loss and the E85 rule of thumb all have wiggle room in them, but realistically, not enough to say that you will be comfortably making 500rwkW..........And then I look at your OP again and realise that you said 500rwHP and that changes things.  That's only ~660 engine HP and therefore probably require up to ~900cc injectors.  So 1000cc injectors will probably do it.

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

GT35R.  Um.  How about something with a T4 flange and a Borg Warner badge?  Top mount manifold, big external gate, big dump pipe and at least a MAC valve required for boost control here.

so maybe this? twin scroll? (if twin .91 or 1.0) Borg Warner S300SX3 (S366) Turbocharger

if so can you help me out in picking a correct wastegate.

looks like i will need 4" dump 

and for a Mac just standard?

There's a number of people who like the S series Borg Warner turbos....but that's not what I was thinking of.  I was thinking of their modern tech turbos, the EFR range.

I strongly suggest that you start reading the various (dozens) of threads on here that already discuss all these things.  Also go to the BW website and play with their matchbot.

Wastegate will probably want to be 60mm, or possibly twin 40mm, depending on the manifold and the turbo chosen.  True split pulse manifolds and turbos deserve proper split pulse wastegating.

When it comes to the MAC valve......I don't know.  I assume you will be trying to use the Haltech to do boost control.  I do not know what its capabilities are (whether it can run only one valve or if it can run two).  One is usually enough.  You are asking for high power levels, which means boost control quality will be important.  Using an external gate at least allows you to use a multi-port MAC valve to apply control to both sides of the diaphragm.  There's more reading in that for you too.

You can get EFRs with internal or external wastegate exhaust housings.  The recirc valve is typically built into the compressor housing.  No, there is no "inbuilt" MAC valve.  The MAC valve is part of the boost controller setup, not the turbo (on any turbo).

I don't know specifically which housings are available for the 8374, because I'm not interested in putting a turbo that big on my car so I don't waste my time looking into it.  But there would have to be ~1000 posts on that turbo on these forums just in the last 6 months.  So there is plenty of info just on here, let alone on the BW website.

  • Like 1

The Borg Warner EFR DO come with a boost MAC solenoid, bolted to the compressor cover. It works well. In addition to the inbuilt Bov too.

IWG can be hit or miss with the EFR's. If in doubt, go external which has been proven to work great 100% of the time.

An 8374 will beat a GTX3582. Especially a GT3582. Consider a 7670, because that can and will do 370kw. (it has done up to 465 on E85 on some 2.5's)

  • Like 1
20 minutes ago, Kinkstaah said:

The Borg Warner EFR DO come with a boost MAC solenoid, bolted to the compressor cover. It works well. In addition to the inbuilt Bov too.

Cool.  Although I'm not sure why they bother.  Would that only be a typical 3 port valve to use with the internal WG?  I can't see someone with super tricky boost control on an ext WG wanting it.

  • Like 1

Eh it works as well as any 3 port mac valve. I used it on my setup when an official MAC product decided to rattle the center piston loose entirely. Can't say it was good or bad or any different really, but it exists and its something people are gonna need for boost control anyway.

Mounting a boost solenoid somewhere is always a headache of mild proportions, being able to bolt it directly to the compressor housing is nice enough. Makes for one hell of a short hose to the solenoid too, which is supplied. One less thing to worry about really

  • Like 1

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...