Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

did u try a 16psi run and see what the results on that was?? maybe then overlap it with ur current map...then see whether the 4psi extra boost is worth the extra stress on the motor because it may just be generating heat and posibbly 2-3 kw per psi..i think the guys are on the right track here....good work!! thats huge power for a 2835 :)

We are of the understanding that that the wastegate spring is 18 PSI - cause thats the minimum boost we could get out out of it when the 3040 was on.

Now if the WG spring is rated at 18 PSI - why is it dropping to 16 PSI ? Spring might be worn.

The converse of this is - If it is a 16 PSI spring - why were we getting a minimum of 18 PSI on the 3040 (and the 2835) from 4000 RPM to 5500 RPM then the drop off ?

I reckon this is wastegate related......

Its now a $$ versus HP gain decision on whether to go chasing it down.

OK - I didn't get a copy of the test run with WG closed - but this is what the Power curve looked like (you can see what I mean bu the experly applied MS paint job I did on the graph)

2835_dyno3.JPG

With the Wastegate and EBC working 100% on the 20 PSI run, I would have expected a curve like this

2835_dyno4.JPG

Am I dreaming ???

We are of the understanding that that the wastegate spring is 18 PSI - cause thats the minimum boost we could get out out of it when the 3040 was on.

 

Now if the WG spring is rated at 18 PSI - why is it dropping to 16 PSI ? Spring might be worn.

 

The converse of this is - If it is a 16 PSI spring - why were we getting a minimum of 18 PSI on the 3040 (and the 2835) from 4000 RPM to 5500 RPM then the drop off ?

 

I reckon this is wastegate related......

 

Its now a $$ versus HP gain decision on whether to go chasing it down.

correct me if im misstaken? u put this turbo on...then send 20+ psi through it??? OR does the tuner gradually raise up the boost pressure when they tune for it???

whats the boost reading when the e-boost is switched off???? wouldn't this tell u exactly wether the spring is worn or not rather then going off ur last turbo????

how can u justify thats its a 16psi spring when tryng to send 20+ psi through it???

can u give more info into this matter?

I'm not trying to justify anything - The wasegate was bought pre-loved and we didn't know what sort of spring was in it.

With the 3040 minumum boost (ie e-boost turned off) was 18 PSI same as the the 2835 (18 PSI) but as you can see from the graphs, boost goes down to 16 PSI as revs increase. I'd prefer for it to stay at 18 or 20 PSI that's what I am sayaing.

All I am stating is the facts - and looking for answers.

all i wanted to know is does it behave in the same manner if u lower the boost (that is when eboost is switched of does it go up to 18psi then dropp to 16psi as well?....from the graph u posted it was initailly 20psi then drops to 16psi......if it is compressor limited generally where the boost drops off too ive noticed it to be most efficent...eg Buster's car... most efficient was 19psi....we squeezed 20+psi...it made a diff of 10kw max and with big spikes in the lower end, likewise with my car...what boost the turbo is rated to be efficient at is not always the case cause if ur making the power ur suppose to on it there no point screwing up the boost.......we were in the same boat as u now...

its not a $$$ for HP gain

it is when ur gonna send more boost through the turbo and eventually blow it

and having to buy a new turbo it will be a $$$ vs HP gain :D

Anywayz at 17-18psi im pretty confident that 2835 uve got will push out 275-285rwkw).....y bother squeezing anymore boost into it , isnt that the ultimate...low boost, big HP, less strain on ur motor, longer life if u want an answer i think thats it

otherwise get a bigger turbo...but as u go bigger Lag is the enemy as u should know with the 30/40.....how doe sthis turbo compare???

:)

Hey why not screw the wastegate in a bit and try it without the EBC connected, just running one line from the plenum to the bottom fitting on the gate. That way you can eliminated the wastegate from creeping open due to the EBC.. or see if it's the wastegate at fault.

Those Trust R gates are rebuildable, can always open it up to see if the diagphram is torn or catching on the side.

It's a fallacy that HKS turbos only start to make power at 18psi. If that were the case all their compressor lineup would have massive exducer diameters, and would be pretty laggy due to the increased inertia.

Having that massive spike on your "ideal" graph would just smoke the tyres. I bet it would be faster + more driveable without the EBC spiking the boost at lower RPMS, although at higher road speeds you might want that mid range spike.

If you really are after a combination that gives boost early, yet delivers more power up top your best bet is a set of small twins, like GT-SS or 2530. Merli's ~320awkw on GT-SS's would fit your criterea perfectly.

If you really are after a combination that gives boost early, yet delivers more power up top your best bet is a set of small twins, like GT-SS or 2530. Merli's ~320awkw on GT-SS's would fit your criterea perfectly.

Turn it up BoughBoy, as if he's gonna stuff around with setting up twins. Show us Merli's dyno to prove that his mid range is good.

Where was the boost reading taken from for the dyno input? Inlet manifold?

Adrian

Yes that's right :P

Umm but before the intercooler :)

On the pipe from the turbo to the cooler !

I think - well that is where the E-boost is plumbed in

I'll check where they tapped in the Dyno boost input

Yeah - nice smooth curve - unlike mine which is a bit all over the place.

Oh BTW - DB Don't forget that I have a big FO bar and plate intercooler to ensure that the so called 'hot air' is sufficiently cooled before it goes in the engine :D

Not taking ANYTHING away from Grepin - But I would have thought that a Externally wastegated, top mount 2835 would have performed a little bit better then a an internally gated low mount.

Thanks for posting Grepin - you have damn good power and nice curve. :D:)

Don't get me wrong - my car is still damn fast - It scares me more than the 3040 - cause on the street it is soo much more zippy. :)

Cheers fellas

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...