Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I vote for Hypergear Turbos, have used 3 of them myself. Tao @hypergear is quite active on these forums.

I would suggest getting the ball bearing option, day & night difference from the journal bearing.

Be aware that a Hypergear turbo is not really a direct replacement from an engine management point of view. They make more boost and flow than the R33 ECU will be happy with. Talk to Tao about your options to keep the new turbo not so far away from the capabilities of the stock turbo so the ECU doesn't shit itself.

Then just get a @Toshi remapped R33 ECU (yes it is possible, only very select people can do it) for 1bar boost, FMIC, stock injectors, stock MAF, better fuel pump etc.

Should give you about 190~210kW at the rears.

  • Like 1
5 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Then just get a @Toshi remapped R33 ECU (yes it is possible, only very select people can do it) for 1bar boost, FMIC, stock injectors, stock MAF, better fuel pump etc.

Should give you about 190~210kW at the rears.

I have gotten contact with one who has a original Turbo, the rest of the engine is not original though. I have an Apexi ECU, biggee injectors and some stuff inside the engine. 

1 hour ago, Spokig said:

I have gotten contact with one who has a original Turbo, the rest of the engine is not original though. I have an Apexi ECU, biggee injectors and some stuff inside the engine. 

Should have said so before. All our warnings and information about not going too big on the turbo can be ignored. A bigger turbo would be fine. Probably better to spend a bit more on something new rather than a stock ceramic time bomb.

Just now, GTSBoy said:

Should have said so before. All our warnings and information about not going too big on the turbo can be ignored. A bigger turbo would be fine. Probably better to spend a bit more on something new rather than a stock ceramic time bomb.

Yeah but the thing is the car inspection does not like bigger turbo, i have an Garrett 34xx already but i want it to "look" original so it can pass inspection. So as soon as it has passed inspection i can swap back go the better turbo. 

 

So i wont boost it more than 0.8 and map it to as close to original as possible then have a map with the better stuff.

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...