Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 223
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'd love to know Paul's secret to 450HP. I'm nearly there - with similar turbo (larger rear housing). Dude did you have an exhaust on your car when you got the 450 ?

 

This is 23 PSI - ( get no difference in power from 21 PSI upwards - tried 25 PSI today and 2 rwkw less - same dyno)

B-man, That was with a 3" exhaust and no cat, 45mm external wastegate. We found that pushing the boost much higher wasn't producing anymore power either, but we're unsure whether it was the turbo or the cams running out of puff. We'll be changing the cams soon, and failing that may try the GT30R.

maybe SST Steve can help here, is the reason Wolfs can make the power they do on standard injectors or standard GTR injectors because of the way they fire the injectors, Is it something along the lines of 2 squirts per fire rather then one (sorry no idea how to explain what I mean but I'm sure Steve will understand:) )

We are replacing the gearbox then of to the drags with a new set Street ETs.

Last year this car was running 411rwhp on stock pistons and injectors and ppl said that we were lieing then the car went on one of these ppls dyno and made 436rwhp.

its not still running stock injectors is it???

My sard 550cc injectors read 80% duty cycle at 320rwkw so 330cc stock injectors will be reading 120% duty cycle at those power levels.

Anyway highest i have got with GT30/40 0.70 comp and 0.86 rear is 322kw@wheels at 1.4bar stock internals at selectamaz dyno day which i havent got a graph for either.

car comes on boost hard at 4000-4200rpm with the 0.86 rear and lights tyres up 2nd and sometime start of third, so i hate to think how the power delivery with a 0.63 housing gives.

I got a graph from autosalon where it pulled 312kw@wheels indoors in hot conditions. The 322kw@wheels was in a 12 degree day outdoor dyno.

0.87 housing and 0.63 housing is quite a difference!!

I like it much better when i accelerate and i am actually moving forward and not just sliging along with wheel spin. Have you tried a bigger housing? you might see more power with more boost then as ur exhaust housing must be causing a restriction

I have now been convinced as to what people have been saying for a long time, Dyno graphs dont mean jack shit.

My car is currently in a Bayswater workshop in VIC getting some mods done.

The workshop in question has a brand spankers DD 4wd dyno.

This workshop together with APS built and developed a twin turbo kit for the LS1 engine.

On there own dyno the car made 460rwkw. On the APS dyno it made 510rwkw both times on RACE FUEL.

The car recently went interstate for a Holden vs Ford gig and won the dyno comp with a ridiculous 650rwkw on PUMP FUEL. Go figure.

The owner of the workshop showed just how easy it is to make a dyno read a lot lot higher than it should.

One example was to "manipulate" the dynos temp sensor for a higher reading in shootout mode.

The next example, and one I did not know about was that supposedly each car that goes onto the dyno is meant to be calibrated so that when the car is doing 100km/h so is the dyno.

He ran the same car twice in a row, one time with the dyno geared correctly and once with the geariing tweaked a tad.

The difference was amazing, the outright power wasnt that much higher, but higher nonetheless but the average power was about 20kw greater all the way across. Overlapping the two graphs you would think they were two different cars.

So to all the people who write "dynos are just a tuning tool and power graphs should be taken with a grain of salt" I 100% agree with you.

Yeah, I have thought about changing the housings, but I don't want to loose the nice spread of power I have. May try a GT30R on to see how it goes.

GTS-t VSPEC or Steve-SST,

which GT30 core do u have now, can u provide the CHRA number?

it might be worth your while to go up to an A/R .82 exhaust housing.

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...