Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Russdmuss said:

Good point lithium, I noticed when using the traction control the boost would spike quickly during Cut events when looking at the data. Might be worth monitoring it against a speed sensor. 

If you're not using throttle control for torque management probably not sooo much of a thing, but ignition cuts are pretty hard on stuff.... not necessarily something I'd totally expect to cause this kind of failure though.

1 minute ago, Komdotkom said:

To the best of my knowledge GPR doesn't do torque management so you don't have to worry about that aspect of it. I haven't tried but you should be able to build a table for turbine speed vs WG position or DC to prevent future explosions.

A mate runs a 40mm DBW TB to atmosphere as a boost bleed pre TB and fresh air anti lag. This results in wild turbine speeds and response. And broken turbos!

Cool yeah not familiar with the GPR so was just saying it in case it might be - and yeah with the GTR package there are ways of adjusting the boost targetting as well to avoid massive silly things from happening.  

The pro package is really more about the contact patch of the tyre and building a model around that as a target. This is largely managed through DBW position but wheel slip and boost are also variables. I've got 12 position switch for target power and another 12 position switch for 'traction', it then dreams up a map in between the two by shaping the boost curve and DBW position to suit.

I'll shoot you a map if you want to have a squizz

  • Like 1

Differently genuine garrett this time around and will start looking into what tables I can build to monitor/control turbine speeds. 

The car runs a similar setup to your Komdotkom with two rotary switches one for power and one for traction control at 2% increases. 

6-8% slip seems to be the fast as it just starts to slip but doesn't take too much power to control in the lower gears. 

I'm really impressed with the motec this far, step learning curve for me with ecu's but motec support has been very helpful with any questions or help. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
On 16/10/2023 at 11:33 PM, Russdmuss said:

Hi Guys, 

Just wanting to replace my current turbo (pulsar g30-770)which has catastrophically failed,  I believe it was from over-speeding but can't confirm that. 

The car 

S13 with rb25 neo with Tomei procams type b, rod bolts, metal headgasket, plasmaman plenum, standard exhuast manifold with external gate welded on and pulsar g30 770 .83 housing. 

Car made 591hp at the hubs on just over 26pd

The purpose of the car is some street driving but does a lot of circuit racing and tarmac events. 

The car is great to drive super responsive on the street and track, as the engine is getting built as we speak and the turbo has failed I want to replace it with a garrett unit and a 6 boost manifold. 

Question is would a twin scroll g35-900 1.06 be as responsive? Or do I stay with a g30-770 and move up to a larger rear housing. 

Yes I know it's been covered in other sections but haven't found and real back to back information. 

Thanks Russell 20220818_153513.thumb.jpg.ad011c9e9485fe1bf45bc6d5aaf390ed.jpg

Likely over-sped.

I just finished testing on a stock long block neo with bolt-ons.

PSR5855G T4TS 0.85, P98, 25 psi 522 whp chassis dyno. Calculated and actual elevation 300m.

157000 rpm measured shaft speed at 7500rpm.

Did have slight manifold leak when pressure tested.

I would go with the 6255G to give you lee-way.

PSR6258G version on built motor with cams was at around 130000rpm at 25psi 8200rpm and approx

600 whp, struggling with traction. No boost leaks.

Whatever way you go doing a pressurized leak test is a must. Most systems have multiple leak points

people are unaware of until tested.

Hope this helps.

 

 

4 minutes ago, infomotive said:

Just had a look at the dyno chart and it seems quite laggy indicating potential system leaks, restrictive intercooler etc etc.

Thankyou for that data it is all helpful and taken on board.

How did you find the 6258 in drive ability and response aposed to the 5855

I did pressure test it once i fitted the pulsar turbo but it did have chinese cooler and std exhuast manifold with 3in exhuast very primitive low cost setup. On the street it was full boost 26pd at 4440rpm. 

On 19/10/2023 at 12:50 PM, infomotive said:

Likely over-sped.

SR5855G T4TS 0.85, P98, 25 psi 522 whp chassis dyno. Calculated and actual elevation 300m.

157000 rpm measured shaft speed at 7500rpm.

Did have slight manifold leak when pressure test

Whatever way you go doing a pressurized leak test is a must

Not to question this data at all, obviously very good input and context been given but I thought I'd add stuff from some data I've got for a car run in a hub dyno (these numbers are from a roller dyno that reads more like a Mainline/dyno dynamics roller than a Mainline hub) where we have pretty high confidence of no leaks etc.  It's not for a G30 770 but should add some perspective.

A mate's SR20VE with a Garrett Gen2 GTX3076R made 597hp @ hubs on E85 at 23psi at a bit of altitude, with 131,000rpm turbine speed.  These don't have as efficient a compressor as the G30 770 and have the same max turbine rpm (around 145,000).  Also gives a better lock on conversion of hub HP vs flow on E85 for a rwd on a Mainline prohub. 

If the are no leaks, the Pulsar G30 770 flows about the same as the Garrett version etc it seems like they shouldn't be at a point they are exploding at this power and I might go checking now, but I could swear others have made this power area fine already with them.

 

IMG-20220607-WA0002.jpg

Edited by Lithium
  • 2 weeks later...

I found G30 turbine doesn't have enough turbine to run 900 series compressor wheel, you find G35-900 makes alot more top end. Having said that I can rebuild and hybrid your current 770 that makes more power without too much lag and better reliability.

Add:

After reading your dyno print. It should not reach shaft speed limitations at 26psi. This usually happens when compressor is fully maxed. When I was conducting bearing threash hold few years back, 54/55mm chra exploded at 38psi while 58/62mm configuration exploded at 41psi.  Test conducted based on a built EA888 Gen 3 engine. 

 

Edited by hypergear
  • Like 4
  • 4 months later...

Had the exact same thing happen to me last year with my G30 770 .82 making 350kw on 26psi 98 fuel on a built RB25det neo.

What turbo did you end up going with OP? I did consider the G30 900 but genuine this time or a turbosmart 6262 with a smaller rear housing going flex fuel this time around :)
 

20230622_164816.jpg

  • Like 1

This might be interesting for some people whom after abit more then a G30-900. This is a comparative graph running an G30-900 copy Vs G30-900 revised (Ss3ProR). Very similar in response to a G30-900 while making 71kws of extra power. Test car is on a Rb2530det run both turbos to a point that no more power could be made. T3 .82 rear housing, E85 fuel, Hub dyno tuned.

ss3proRvG30900labledpower.thumb.jpg.422f8760e34a19924ff5dd0cda960d70.jpg

ss3proRVG30900boostlabeled.thumb.jpg.f36e912f99078dedfe0f17c920a51a24.jpg

 

 

 

@asvpzane I haven't bought another turbo yet as the engine was damaged as well, engine is almost done now.

I'm leaning towards the turbosmart 6262 turbo as it's slightly bigger then g30-770 and hopefully still similar in response. 

I'll fit in a speed sensor as well and update this section once it up and running. 

  • 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

    • My thinking is that if the O2 sensor is shot then your entire above described experience is pure placebo.
    • Here is the mess that I made. That filler there was successful in filling dents in that area. But in the middle area. I can feel dents. And I've gone ocer it multiple times with filler. And the filler is no longer there because i accidently sanded it away. I've chased my tail on this job but this is something else lol. So I'm gonna attempt filler one more time and if it doesn't work I'll just high fill primer the door and see where the issues are because guidecoat is of no use atm.
    • Ok, so I think I sort of figured out where I went wrong. So I definitely overthinked it, and I over sanded, which is probably a large part of the problem. to fix it, I ended up tapping some spots that were likely to be high, made them low, filled them in, and I tackled small sections at a time, and it feels a lot better.    I think what confused me as well is you have the bare metal, and some spots darker and some are lighter, and when I run my finger across it, it' would feel like it's a low spot, but I think it's just a transition in different texture from metal to body filler.    When your finger's sliding on the body filler, and crosses over to the bare metal, going back and forth, it feels like it's a low spot. So I kept putting filler there and sanding, but I think it was just a transition in texture, nothing to do with the low or high spot. But the panel's feels a lot better, and I'm just going to end up priming it, and then I'll block it after with guide coat.   Ended up wasting just about all of my filler on this damn door lol  
    • -10 is plenty for running to an oil cooler. When you look at oil feeds, like power steering feeds, they're much smaller, and then just a larger hose size to move volume in less pressure. No need for -12. Even on the race cars, like Duncans, and endurance cars, most of them are all running -10 and everything works perfectly fine, temps are under control, and there's no restrictions.
    • Update: O2 sensor in my downpipe turned out to be faulty when I plugged in to the Haltech software. Was getting a "open circuit" warning. Tons of carbon buildup on it, probably from when I was running rich for a while before getting it corrected. Replaced with new unit and test drove again. The shuffle still happens, albeit far less now. I am not able to replicate it as reliably and it no longer happens at the same RPM levels as before. The only time I was able to hear it was in 5th going uphill and another time in 5th where there was no noticeable incline but applying more throttle first sped it up and then cleared it. Then once in 4th when I slightly lifted the throttle going over a bump but cleared right after. My understanding is that with the O2 sensor out, the ECU relies entirely on the MAP tune and isn't able to make its small adjustments based on the sensors reading. All in all, a big improvement, though not the silver bullet. Will try validating the actuators are set up correctly, and potentially setting up shop time to tune the boost controller on closed loop rather than the open loop it is set to now. Think if it's set up on closed loop to take the O2 reading, that should deal with these last bits. Will try to update again as I go. 
×
×
  • Create New...