Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi pplz i need a lil bit help

im chasing 350rwkw i had 300 but was to laggy

im getting the heads posted and polised today and new valve springs

also looking into some low comp pistons, maybe a gt35/40 also some stonger rod bolts i have the ignition setup already and fuel set up

i need some ideas the more the better also i also have a high mount manifold waste gate and im after some ideas for ecu

thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/93107-wanting-over-350-rwkw/
Share on other sites

hang on, you just said 300rwkw was too laggy but you want more power? dont expect less lag? have you considered a 3 litre bottom end? adding another 50rwkw is only going to add "more lag" if you don't make the engine more efficient at the same boost level and / or turbocharger size

a healthy shot of nitrous will help you get there for a split second or two :P

this is just a idea n i dun no much bout the rb25s but im about 2 (rb25det neo coming for my r31 wagon this weekend :-D )... its prolly too late to say this now and might be innefective but wat about a neo head would your computer handle variable valve timing???... that got em a extra 30 kw or so along with bigger coil packs n some other stuff (pretty sure)

not bad thanks pplz i dint think ill be going to the 3lt bottom end would love to but cash might be a issue how hard is it to do

and wat does it cost

i had a t70 was a bit laggy but i still producced just over 300 rwkw on 19psi i think i want a high mount and also a ball bearing turbo for quicker spool

i need to know has anyone reground there cams as i heard this is a option instead of buying some

5000 rpm

im getting a high mount

need to know wat turbo to use i wat it earlier than that

i had a t70 standard manifold with custom dump pipe setup bosch 044 spitfires now im getting port and polish also wat are the best pistons im goin 20thou over

well my GT30 used to get on the money (17psi) around 4000-4200rpm, thats on the street, no "preloading" on a dyno or whatever.

That was 300rwkw at a max with that.

You want a bigger GT35, 350rwkw... its gonna be a little better than what you have now... maybe 500rpm at a stab.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...