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

    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...