Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Had a quick search but couldnt find anything, having an odd problem with the car (R32 GTR).

Just had some Tomei Poncams installed and when the car hits 0.75 bar boost it sounds like its misfiring (its not misfire though) and the turbos (hks gt2530's) start to surge (e.g going "woosh woosh woosh woosh woosh woosh").

Anyone know what could possibly cause this problem? The car drives fine around off boost, but as soon as it hits 0.75 bar it runs into the above problem. The car ran 1.5 bar no problems before the cams were installed.

From what I was told the in cam is +4 and ex cam is -2, all the shims were also replaced and valve springs.

If anyone has any ideas what could be causing it, would be appreciated.

:mad:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/54801-rb26-boost-problem/
Share on other sites

mine does it as well although my cams are set on "0" on my degree wheels, which means very little other than a starting point for which to gauge changes by. I stop it by simply changing down a gear and moving out of the surge line.

Have you have it dynoed since the cam change? my torque starts to drop off after 4800rpm since I've installed the cams so I guess I will need to retard them to move the torque curve to the right a bit to get back the top end rush. I change gear now at 5000rpm cause the torque drops off so much after that.

Mike

mine does it as well although my cams are set on "0" on my degree wheels, which means very little other than a starting point for which to gauge changes by.  I stop it by simply changing down a gear and moving out of the surge line.

Have you have it dynoed since the cam change? my torque starts to drop off after 4800rpm since I've installed the cams so I guess I will need to retard them to move the torque curve to the right a bit to get back the top end rush.  I change gear now at 5000rpm cause the torque drops off so much after that.

Mike

Havnt had it on a dyno but done extensive road tuning with it. Whats wierd is once the car warms up (oil temp over 70 and water temp at 80 - 85) it does it a few times, and then it clears up and doesnt happen again until you cold start the car and wait for it to warm up where it does it a few times again, and then clears up and doesnt happen. Very wierd problem.

And the cams are far from dialled in from factory, all in all after this experiance, ive come to the conclusion the camshafts are -far- from a "bolt in" item...

try setting it back to "0" / "0"to start with then retard the inlet ( this will move the torque upwards in the mid to top range) and adv the exhuast ( this will widen the lobe centres given a broader torque delivery0 THATS THE THEORY ANYWAYS :D

I'm off to the dyno tomorrow for some extensive testing on my own GTR so I'll let you know my results if you like.

Mike

  • 2 weeks later...

Nik

Can't be the cams that have made the difference, as my car is doing it as well! and it has not had any changes since the dyno day. 1st time I experienced it was using OCTANE booster - it foulded the iridums, which i replaced with coppers. This solved it for a few hundred km's, but it has since returned.

I have read other posts that point to the coilpacks.... I'll be checking these and changing my fuel filter.

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...