burn4005

Skeptical of the benefits mostly due to Borg themselves abandoning the concept. Wether that was due to reliability, performance or cost constraints I have no idea.

It's real flow is 90-95lb/min corrected so 900-950hp in old money turbo ratings (or Borg equivalent) so about the same flow as an 8474 which Borg eates as a 950hp turbo. The Garrett is a bit more efficient on the compressor side of things in the meat of the map but that doesn't affect the peak power rating, where both turbos are trailing off 60% at their peak flow.

If you're a vendor Pm me the site and I'll post about it instead I've searched high and low for one so it's good info.

G35-900 is rated at 900hp but only flows ~80lb/min. And even less at higher pressure ratios. They got very optimistic with their ratings compared with previous generations. An efr8374 flows a full 79lb/min all the way up to a 2.5 bar boost (3.5PR) and they only rated it at 750hp. I blame Garrett's Marketing department. Precisions.. like 6262 and 6466... who the f**k knows but they must derate them as everyone drives those things waay beyond their rated flow. And they just smoke rather than die.

adjust the cams? That's really late for 15psi but reasonable with poorly optimised cam timing. Is your boost control soft? Holding the solenoid on while your spooling can help too. Boost leaks don't help either

This is an odd hill to want to die on gtsboy, what makes you think the chamfer on the face of the whole is not intended for an oring? Here is an ORB cross section for comparison..

Yes. At idle anyway. Under normal revs it should feel fine. The water pump and power steering are underdriven by design. AC is overdriven so your AC output in your ECU should be disengaged above 3500rpm or so.

Why not? AN fitting ORB threads are parallel and they seem to be fine.

Have a cry about it.. comp cover is soft alloy, comes off with 1 vband and an 1/8 npt tap needs a 8.2mm drilled hole. So will completely clean out the m8 thread. Not exactly rocket surgery

Hi Guys, I am soon to embark on removal of my OEM plenum and all the random stuff under the manifold but wanted to confirm that a hypertune plenum can actually fit in a bnr34 without having to remove the clutch booster and running a s-chassis clutch master cylinder? its an ITB plenum like the one attached. now I'm not interested in the fact an OEM plenum is capable of power. this is an engineering project I'm embarking on with ITB drive by wire and will be comparing any manifold benefits around the 700g/s (900ish hp) mark vs the OEM manifold. there may be none, but I want the data. i have 6 EGT sensors for validation purposes. thanks.

I would definately go a 8474. this turbo is at absolute full speed. on the 490kw trace you can see the boost drop at 7500rpm. that is the boost target dropping to stop it going over 128krpm. this is the VE calculated airflow ive overlayed over the compressor map. nothing left. this is the VE

yep i have a 6 boost with single divided outlet, 8374 1.05 on a 2.6l rb26 50mm progate, 7psi spring a 4 port mac valve. no creep above 10psi of boost. below this you are asking too much flow through the gate. the lowest boost run was with the boost solenoid unplugged from ecu.

18x9.5 TE37. The 380mm fit with plenty of room

what calipers did you use for the 355mm rear from brakes direct? I have 380mm fronts with the CR6380 and 350mm 370z rear with stock caliper. looking to upgrade rear to an alcon caliper in future for better balance. pad choice was likely a contributor. put some proper pads and make sure you fluid is fresh and bled. project mu H16 Carbotech XP10/12 performance friction 01/06 etc either flush brakes every event or run Castrol SRF fluid and just bleed a bit to ensure no air. and my rule is double the power, double the brakes. stock brakes on High powered cars doing consecutive laps is a bad idea, so good call on the big kit for the 3.2

Hi all, So I've found myself in the possession of a hypertune itb plenum for my rb26. Now looking at it, the space for the stud nuts to sit is pretty tight during installation and it's pretty large at cylinder 6. Is this something that can be installed with the engine In the car? It looks like the clutch master and booster probably have to be pulled and possibly the rear cylinder runner studs cut down a bit to be able to slide it on. Otherwise remove cyl 6 runner from the plenum, bolt the runner to head then bolt back to plenum after installed? I've pulled OEM plenums in car before and it's a prick but doable, but if this new plenum is impossible to install and the motor must be pulled then i wouldn't bother with the effort of removing OEM until the engine was out. Which I'd really like to avoid.

8374,8474,9180,9280 are all identical turbos as far as external dimensions go.

*transfer case factory

Flat shift means your transient response really isn't important for straight line punting which is what this car is about.

I understand where you're coming from regarding release of info. you've sunk a lot of time into the R&D of this and are correct to protect your IP as the value lies in the design rather than the fabrication. don't mind me, I'm just a nosy engineer that has been burned before by the performance aftermarket so like to evaluate things myself.

@Stefan Etter Do you have any logs of commanded throttle position vs actual from an ECU, especially at low openings? I'm interested in the control response of this setup under high vacuum conditions specifically for stable idle control. the E46 M3 engine that had a similar setup used an idle control valve for fine airflow adjustment, but it appears there is no auxillary idle air control in this system. main observations are from the limited pictures i've seen look like the linkage gain at low openings appear to be quite high (linkage is tangential to actuator arm at low openings) and significant shaft area due to the 6 throttles have a potential to introduce significant stiction. if you have calculated a linkage gain curve for the assembly that would be interesting to see. this may be incorrect on my part and actually be 1:1 through the whole sweep.

Poor DBW output tuning makes this far more of an issue than a mechanical fault with the gear itself. you should be limiting the half bridge duty when approaching open and closed limits to keep the torque down. driving it hard against the stops (usually from excessive integral gain or poor feed-forward mapping) certainly doesn't help.

small note to those interested, you'll have to remove your oil heat exchanger for this kit to fit. something I've found when investigating. not a big deal, but something to be factored in.

ok so I've done some more digging and have come accross this nismo plot of the AFM curve. I have interpolated several points that cross the grid neatly and it seems to line up with the nistune calibration curves. will see how this goes first and build a manometer/oriface plate/pitot etc if needed. it appears that using a stock RB-26 AFM will be better for my needs as it gives much better flow resolution down low. nismo graph of voltage vs flow: Voltage (v) % Scale g/s 0.080 0.073 0.356 0.160 0.073 0.356 0.240 0.073 0.356 0.320 0.073 0.356 0.400 0.073 0.356 0.480 0.073 0.356 0.560 0.111 0.542 0.640 0.159 0.772 0.720 0.218 1.061 0.800 0.290 1.410 0.880 0.377 1.833 0.960 0.487 2.367 1.040 0.618 3.005 1.120 0.777 3.777 1.200 0.974 4.734 1.280 1.196 5.817 1.360 1.445 7.026 1.440 1.723 8.377 1.520 1.982 9.638 1.600 2.373 11.537 1.680 2.753 13.385 1.760 3.182 15.470 1.840 3.658 17.785 1.920 4.179 20.322 2.000 4.747 23.082 2.080 5.362 26.072 2.160 6.055 29.441 2.240 6.833 33.225 2.320 7.671 37.298 2.400 8.582 41.728 2.480 9.572 46.543 2.560 10.634 51.707 2.640 11.765 57.205 2.720 12.978 63.103 2.800 14.269 69.380 2.880 15.628 75.991 2.960 17.073 83.017 3.040 18.601 90.444 3.120 20.217 98.302 3.200 21.930 106.634 3.280 23.737 115.418 3.360 25.669 124.812 3.440 27.681 134.598 3.520 29.770 144.755 3.600 31.972 155.462 3.680 34.275 166.658 3.760 36.698 178.440 3.840 39.240 190.801 3.920 41.920 203.830 4.000 44.746 217.571 4.080 47.710 231.987 4.160 50.820 247.108 4.240 54.066 262.889 4.320 57.447 279.331 4.400 61.001 296.611 4.480 64.704 314.618 4.560 68.548 333.308 4.640 72.547 352.755 4.720 76.704 372.966 4.800 81.025 393.978 4.880 85.512 415.791 4.960 90.167 438.428 5.040 94.995 461.904 5.120 100.000 486.240

Hi, I am looking to set up a flow test bench to perform some validation of some fuel system components. I have some air flow meters sitting here (specifically Z32 AFMs) that i would like to use to meter the air entering the combustion process to validate the fuel flow against that, based on resuting lambda data. I have found the MAF scaling tables in nistune, that are read in (0.08-5.12v) that scale between 0.07 to 100% of maximum MAF flow. my question is what 100% corresponds to in actual airflow in g/s? if anyone else has accurate calibration data for any MAF sensors that would be helpful. thankyou.

I used to get a lap or two around QR at full tilt before I start filling the can (before all the oil control mods). You must be driving like a mad man on the street.