Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

im not aiming at any great figures, instead a great road car with plenty of response.

Any details about the turbo / setup you are running?

And i hear what you are saying about a responsive street car, but dont be too afraid to throw a mid sized turbo on the RB20. :O

LOL, And again, here come all the disclaimers...i hear what you are saying about no major mods, and it is great power for so little work done, but i think a general trend is starting to emerge in this thread.

And this point isnt shot at anyones results, its just having a think about how/why we keep seeing similar numbers despite the vastly different dollars spent.

My turbo is what most ppl would expect to be laggy, it aint a ball bearing Garret / IHI etc either. Im kinda keen to see someone put a manifold, gate and 2835 on an RB20 :)

I am only using my setup as a comparison as its the only 350-420hp turbo setup on a std RB20 that i have a dyno plot for in 4th gear.

Comparing dyno results (not the most accurate approach i know, but its a start) In 4th gear at :

- 80km/h i have 5psi and 54rwkws vs your 45rwkws @ 6psi

- 95km/h i have 8.5psi and 78rwkws vs your 87rwkws @ 12psi

- 110km/h i have 17psi and 150rwkws vs your 125rwkws @15psi

- 125km/h i have 18psi and 204rwkws vs your 150rwkws @15psi

- 140km/h i have 18psi and 225rwkws vs your 180rwkws @14psi

- 155km/h i have 18psi and 234rwkws vs your 190rwkws @14psi

No doubt with a touch more boost, and the other mods you are considering, you will make more power...

But i plot in spreadhseets most RB20 dyno plots i see and i am starting to form the opinion that the RB20 it is never going to be a power house down low. Put a little 320hp turbo (2510-2530, GT-SS etc)on it and it will make a few more rwkws before 4,000rpm, but after 4,00rpm it will be comfortably overtaken by a slightly larger turbo.

And with too big a turbo, say 600ho GT30 it is never going to flow the numbers it should. So has that lack of low end mid-range, only never to deliver above 5,000rpm to make up for the deficit.

But if you size a turbo around the 350-420hp turbo it seems smack bang what i would consider a good compromise for response, mid range and a top end that gives the little RB20 that real turbo feel / flavour.

There are no doubts exceptions to the rule, and this is only an opinion i have formed based on results seen in this thread, but at the minute i think its a pretty sound theory. ;)

So what was i saying, :D lol, yeh dont be afraid of turbos liek 2535s on Rb20s, who is going to be the first to try the GT-RS :)

throw some cash this way, ill try it!

lol

wat im proud of roy is making that power on basically nothing but r33 turbo, exhaust, fmic, boost....

with minimal cost

turbo 350

exhaust 700

fmic 500

boost 50

everything has been installed by myself

so ill be proud to hit 200+ at a total cost to me of $2500ish

post-7066-1123497253.jpgpost-7066-1123497319.jpgHi Roy

I agree with your statement that the rb20 will never have heaps of power down low and differing turbos will make different power though i do beleive that turbo positioning may also play a part in this though not to sure as there are the high mounts like yours the standard mid mount type and then there's the low mount type like mine with my to4e which even after the last turbo rebuild they still recon isnt flowing enough for the engine don't know how though its big enough anyway getting back onto subject yours is producing unreal hp with the mods you have i would have like to see what it would produce on and engine with cams and ported head adjustable cam gears 55occ injectors it could be a big hp producer as my last dyno graph no longer appears in this thread i'll repost it as you will see i think the hp with standard boost is really good so id have to say it has a lot to do with cams etc and still returning excellant fuel econamy just my thoughts anyway

Cheers Peter

He's a member of this board. I forget his name.

He bought a Blitz SBC-iD off me and I installed it for him some time ago.

He's running a stock ecu that has been remapped.

i havnt done my ecu yet. soon....

any recommedations?

It does depend on who tunes the stock ecu, generally with the pfc you will pick up mid and possibly a little top end with say a pfc as the tuner is able to push it closer to the edge with the use of the pfc's knock feedback.

I.e Chris32.

post-7066-1123497253.jpgpost-7066-1123497319.jpg...though i do beleive that turbo positioning may  also play a part in this though not to sure as there are the high mounts like yours the standard mid mount type and then there's the low mount type like mine with my to4e

Yeh , thats my thinking as well, that the RB20 really benefits from a nice manifold. Also on paper i think the low mount would work a bit better as the exhaust flow out of the turbo would have less bends and be a straighter path...though who can really say for sure the performance difference between the two.

No headwork for me, but i am going to be trialling some locally reground cams in the near future...if they work well im sure to be posting up the results. If they dont work as well as i hope then ill suck it in and get the Poncams/HKS...its just that im kinda curious how these other sticks will go as others have now trialled HKS/Poncams with good results, so will see if the cat still gets skinned when trying something a little different

As for 190rwkws from an R33 turbo, and chipped ECU, thats good bang for dollar, its kinda depressing actually. Be good to see ppl making the same power as RB25s with 500cc less, half a point less compression but the same turbo.

Actually this is going to be way interesting...come on get those cam gears and tunes going, will be very interesting to see the difference in power curve between a std turb R33 making 200rwkws and an RB20 with R33 turb making 200rwkws :P

It may help put into perspective all the claims that the RB20 is gutless, lacks torque etc, as i dont think they are near as bad as ppl make out

throw some cash this way, ill try it!

lol

wat im proud of roy is making that power on basically nothing but r33 turbo, exhaust, fmic, boost....

with minimal cost

turbo 350

exhaust 700

fmic 500

boost 50

everything has been installed by myself

so ill be proud to hit 200+ at a total cost to me of $2500ish

Yeh but what about that bloody front bar you have that should have been mine...thats good for a few kws....i dont think i will ever swallow that deal you got with that bar...im still looking :P

legend01.....

What are the specs of your to4E and is it internal or external gated?

Your graphs look virtually identical to mine except my high boost setting is a little lower.

Mine is internal gated T3/T04E. T04 compressor housing and wheels and a T3 exhaust housing.

As for 190rwkws from an R33 turbo, and chipped ECU, thats good bang for dollar, its kinda depressing actually. Be good to see ppl making the same power as RB25s with 500cc less, half a point less compression but the same turbo.

I agree about it being depressing roy, spent about 6k with all mods and tuning for the car and making [email protected] what fun those 207kw are!! :P

if anyone can get your hands on a HKS cast manifold.......i'll try it. And i'm hunting around for some 256 or 260 cams for mine to see if it make any difference to the 2530.

FATGTS-R

the turbo started out as a hks t4 had it rebuilt and hiflowed but that proved not to flow enough so it went back in and had a .63 exhaust housing fitted but had to be machined to take the exhaust impeller wheel as the hks item was to big and was kept on there advice the compressor side of things have been hi-flowed it a 50ar housing been machined for a 59 inducer wheel all bolted up on a hks cast low mount manifold with a 35mm hks external waste gate

Cheers Peter

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

    • You won't need to do that if your happy to learn to tune it yourself. You 100% do not need to do that. It is not part of the learning process. It's not like driving on track and 'finding the limit by stepping over the limit'. You should not ever accidently blow up an engine and you should have setup the ECU's engine protection to save you from yourself while you are learning anyway. Plenty of us have tuned their own cars, myself included. We still come here for advice/guidance/new ideas etc.  What have you been doing so far to learn how to tune?
    • Put the ECU's MAP line in your mouth. Blow as hard as you can. You should be able to see about 10 kPa, maybe 15 kPa positive pressure. Suck on it. You should be able to generate a decent vacuum to about the same level also. Note that this is only ~2 psi either way. If the MAP is reading -5 psi all the time, ignition on, engine running or not, driving around or not, then it is severely f**ked. Also, you SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING IT WITHOUT A LOAD REFERENCE. You will break the engine. Badly.
    • Could be correct. Meter might be that far out. Compare against a known 5 ohm 1% resistor.
    • @Murray_Calavera  If I were an expert I wouldn't be in here looking for assistance.  I am extremely computer literate, have above average understanding on how things should be working and how they should tie together.  If I need to go to a professional tuner so be it, but I'd much rather learn and do things myself even if it means looking for some guidance along the way and blowing up a few engines. @GTSBoy  I was hoping it would be as simple as a large vacuum leak somewhere but I'm unable to find anything, all lines seem to be well capped or going where they need to be, and when removed there is vacuum felt on the tube.  It would be odd for the Haltech built in MAP to be faulty, the GTT tune I imported had it enabled from the start, I incorrectly assumed it was reading a signal from the stock MAP, but that doesn't exist.  After running a vacuum hose to the ECU the signal doesn't change more than 0.2 in either direction.   I'll probably upload a video of my settings tomorrow, as it stands I'm able to daily drive, but getting stuttering when giving it gas from idle, so pulling away from lights is a slow process of revving it up and feathering the clutch until its moving, then it will accelerate fine.  It sounds like I need to get to the bottom of the manifold pressure issue, but the ignition timing section is most intimidating to me and will probably let a pro do that part.  Tomorrow I'll try a different vacuum line to T off of, with any luck I selected one that was already bypassed during the DBW swap.  (edit: I went out and did it right now, the line I had chosen did appear to have no vacuum on it, it used to go to the front of the intake, I've now completely blocked that one off at the bracket that holds several vacuum lines by the firewall.  I T'd into the vacuum line that goes from that bracket to the vacuum pump at the front of the car, but no change in the MAP readings).  Using the new vacuum line that has obvious vacuum on the hose, im still only getting readings between -6.0 and -5.2.  I'm wondering why the ECU was detecting -5.3 when nothing was connected to the MAP nipple and ECU MAP selected as the source. @feartherb26  I do have +T in the works but wanted to wait until Spring to start with that swap since this is my good winter AWD vehicle.  When removing the butterfly, did it leave a bunch of holes in the manifold that you needed to plug?  I thought about removing it but assumed it would be a mess.   I notice no difference when capping the vacuum line to it or letting it do its thing.  This whole thing has convinced me to just get a forward facing manifold when the time comes though.
    • Update: tested my spark plugs that are supposed to be 5ohms with a 10% deviation and one gave me a 0 ohms reading and the rest were 3.9ohm<, so one bad and the others on their way out.
×
×
  • Create New...