Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

14psi is considered the safe max

some have run more with no drama's, others have run less and had drama's

You might pick up a few psi with a differant intercooler, but it will also mean your turbo wont have to work as hard to make the same boost as previous if you run 14psi with the stock intercooler compared to 14psi with a aftermarket cooler

hope it makes sense

Chris

14psi is considered the safe max

some have run more with no drama's, others have run less and had drama's

You might pick up a few psi with a differant intercooler, but it will also mean your turbo wont have to work as hard to make the same boost as previous if you run 14psi with the stock intercooler compared to 14psi with a aftermarket cooler

hope it makes sense

Chris

Right so by running 14psi, i wouldn't have to alter anything else on the engine?

The fuel system would be able to keep up with no problems?

So are you saying that by upgrading the intercooler i could say run 12psi and get the same result as running 14psi on the standard cooler?

Right so by running 14psi, i wouldn't have to alter anything else on the engine?

The fuel system would be able to keep up with no problems?

So are you saying that by upgrading the intercooler i could say run 12psi and get the same result as running 14psi on the standard cooler?

If your standard boost gauge (or aftermarket with sensor in the same place) is reading 14psi, that is the actual pressure at the inlet manifold. So, if there is say 3 psi pressure drop through the intercooler and piping etc, the turbo is actually running at 17psi.

So if you reduce the pressure drop, the turbo doesnt have to work so hard to produce the same pressure at the inlet manifold.

right i'm with ya.

So by upgrading the intercooler it should reduce the preasure drop and make life for the turbo that little bit easier.

I've been thinking about installing a single stage boost controller with just a flick switch down the track, and was wondering what would be a reasonable level to increase too.

Thanks for that guys.

Does anyone run any good boost controllers that are worth looking in too????

if you can afford it, there are many benefits to be had with a electronic boost controller

if you do wind the boost up, make sure you get it dyno'd to check air fuel ratio's, especially if the car has the original pump in it

You know once you start with boost, it will never end ;) - fuel pump, clutch, intercooler the list goes on!

i

You know once you start with boost, it will never end ;)  - fuel pump, clutch, intercooler the list goes on!

Cool thanx man.

A friend and i have been talking and it's like you say, a very deep expensive hole that you can fall in to, i'm not sure i want to fall in that hole. but i'll see how things go. i've also got a rather fast motorBike, so i might just keep the extreme speed for that. (on the track of course)

I'd say if your car is in reasonable condition, there is no reason it can't cope with a bit of a boost up

bang for bucks wise a bleed valve can be had for $40 odd bucks, you could try it and see how the car feels. If you don't like it or the car can't handle it, then take it off and sell it

My car was good when i put the intercooler, exhaust and pod filter on, it made 153rwkw with the standard fuel pump, clutch etc. That was without touching the boost too, just with the intercooler and exhaust

if I where you, I'd get one of those $200 all in one dump/front pipe, ditch the cat, intercooler and mild boost up and see how it feels. Either way by increasing flow with the intercooler, or winding a bit of boost in, it will make more power and feel heaps better

Yeah i think that might be a way to go to start with .Just get a manual boost controller and go from there. I understand that there is no use spending a heap if it's not going to get the results or desired reaction.

I think if i was to do anything, and intercooler and exhaust would be the first thing to be looked at. I already have a HKS pod on there, so don't need to go there, and then i might look at uping the boost. Would be alright i recon.

Just a question man, what would a standard RB20DET make at the wheels??? ;)

stock standard in good condition they should make around 100-110rwkw

I'd go with intercooler and exhaust, becasue that is what would give you the best gain, as the boost will rise with less restriction anyway. From there I would look at fuel pump and boost control. I would expect to see 150rwk from exhaust and intercooler mods

oh right. Well i recon that could be a little project work for me to do further down the track.

I'll be looking to make sure it's running alright and smooth, and then i'll think about a few mods, i think exhaust first. Then i'll look at an intercooler.

would you think a larger intercooler would fit in the same location as the standard, or would it be best to go straight for a front mount???

I'd be pretty happy with 150 thats for sure. ;)

14psi is considered the safe max

some have run more with no drama's, others have run less and had drama's

You might pick up a few psi with a differant intercooler, but it will also mean your turbo wont have to work as hard to make the same boost as previous if you run 14psi with the stock intercooler compared to 14psi with a aftermarket cooler

hope it makes sense

Chris

I ran 15 psi on my old turbo, and threw an exhaust blade on a track day. It went well for about 6 months or so, maybe if you are looking to upgrade in the furture you can lean on it a bit more. I'd recomend a HKS actuator to help boost creep at that level ;)

oh right. Well i recon that could be a little project work for me to do further down the track.

I'll be looking to make sure it's running alright and smooth, and then i'll think about a few mods, i think exhaust first. Then i'll look at an intercooler.

would you think a larger intercooler would fit in the same location as the standard, or would it be best to go straight for a front mount???

I'd be pretty happy with 150 thats for sure. ;)

Front mount would be the way to go, much more cooling capacity and potential down the track. There is a Trust side mount cooler on ebay for pretty cheap though

Front mount would be the way to go, much more cooling capacity and potential down the track. There is a Trust side mount cooler on ebay for pretty cheap though

i think i'd have to go for the front mount. There sounds like there would be a better performance from it. I'm sure there must be somewhere that it isn't too hard to mount. Plus it can look pretty tough. But thats beside the point.

What size exhaust would be good to put on??? I wouldn't want anything too big.

If you've got a boost controller there's not much case to upgrade the actuators on RB20's as they came out the factory with 10psi items.

I've just jumped straight in to electronic bost control, if you're handy with a soldering iron you can build one of the new JayCar/Autospeed kits and get away with it all for ~$200 and a few hours work. Discussion thread here.

I've only set mine up roughly but I'm holding 12psi with no dramas and far better boost build-up than previously, i'm going to fine tune things but stay around the 12psi mark until I get it on the dyno next month, provided the mixtures are stable i'll rise things to 14psi but no more.

My car is running a 600x300x75mm front mount, 3" exhaust from the stock dump-pipe back, Denso Supra TT Fuel pump, and a re-mapped ECU for handling more boost (which looking at it on the PC has predominantly ignition timing changes).

Just make sure you have the support systems in place to handle the boost rise, a FMIC and exhaust will give you gains without it, a slightly smaller cooler and 2.5" will suffice but if you intend to eventually replace the stock turbo then a full-size item and a 3" is probably worthwhile.

After they're in move it up a little but make sure you're not leaning out, if you are then drop a pump in and maybe look for an ECU re-map (you don't need a a full PowerFC system unless you intend to go BIG!). And then you can raise it a little more, after that you hit the point where bigger turbos, injectors, and more extensive re-maps come on the cards and your money goes out the window! ;)

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...