discopotato03

Simple enough because it's a turbine change but would the result be better than a standard GTX3067R ? Those HKS Pro S turbine housings may not be too easy to get and they lock you into a unique dump flange . I think in this case I'd leave the std GT30 turbine in place because you can always use larger comp size GT30 cartridges in the existing turbine housing ie a GT3076R . Even if you went up in T hsg size as least the dump is reusable if it's the GT30 style IW one . A .

Hi all , a bit more info about the release versions of this turbo from NASIOC . http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2394879&page=29 A .

Don't really know why it didn't like stoic at light loads though it was running the top of the target map at 50 kpa abs before I changed it . It had flat spots so the feel good factor was a fail . I can try again with a tad more timing in the flat areas . Possibly in a slow turning engine with a slow burning fuel and low dynamic compression it needs more timing there . Yes Andy it runs closed loop 02 correction . I think there may be an issue when tuning these boxes and that's having enough resolution to cover the whole pressure range in the AFR target table . If you use the auto tune to map the on boost areas with fine resolution it may not leave enough for the below atmospheric range , and I'm only using atmo and lower pressures in closed loop anyway . It's something I'll ask Scott when I see him . I'm probably not running the latest firmware update so maybe a few things have changed in revisions , don't know . Cam timing not sure . I do know that head was machined before I got it and was decked again when Harris did their thing on it . There is a chance that the timing is retarded because of the deck height changed but I think they would have mentioned it if it were a problem . My engine has some of the same things done to it as the the SK RB25 though my bottom end is original . I'm pretty sure Gary had an adjustable inlet cam pulley on theirs and I must ask him about that . I think he has the gadget you need to make the exhaust cam side adjustable as well . Very sorry I didn't know the Neo 25 differences back then because if I had my time again I'd have done a Neo or Stag head because I think the chamber and piston crown revisions would have coped better with lean emissions friendly - from the factory point of view - mixtures . Slightly shorter timed and higher lift cams would have been good too , Poncams would have been a given . Thanks for the continuing feedback , cheers Adrian .

Latest update , went for a spin down the Princes Hwy this evening for a bit of open road tuning and my maps now look like this . With a full tank - to the neck - I went down the expressway with a quick stop at Waterfall The Burg and Dapto to dial a few things in . Last fiddle was at Albion Park before this lappy ran out of volts and amps . Then back to the servo at Gymea to top up - to the neck . ODO said a hair over 157 km and the pump said 21.26L which crunches out to 13.54/100 . On a feathered throttle this thing now cruises , on the level , at ~ 0.96 to o.98 Lambda which are numbers I didn't think I'd ever see . BTW the fiddles along the way weren't just to the AFR target table , a bit on the fuel table and a tad more timing in the 50-70 Kpa absolute ranges in the 2600-3000 rev areas . One thing that did help the cause was reviewing the closed loop AFR conditions , I wasn't real happy about the live results I got once the manifold pressure went positive . It had been set to go open loop at 110 Kpa abs and I reset it to 100 because I don't think I need closed loop control on boost . MUCH better as over atmospheric the AFR drops to about 0.87-88 Lambda which feels good . Sailed up Mt Ously at 80-85 in 5th and pulled like a train . This is at around 22-2300 revs and where I used to get boost issues . For those that asked , I'm not sure if you can build a larger AFR target table because I agree a few more rows would be good . Note I changed the pressure axis numbers in the top three rows . Anyway consumption getting better for ethanol and it will be interesting to see what it gets round town . Cheers Adrian .

Shortened version of PM to Mr Lith . AFR target table altered but my engine does not cope with indicated stoi or 1 Lamba mixture . With a bit of stuffing around I got it to work acceptably between 0.90 and 0.98 L and it feels 95% as good as it did with slightly richer mixtures . Basically it doesn't dip into the 8s nearly as easily as it did . AND , for the record , I DID try mixture ratios in the 9s when the plug in was first fitted and tuned and they felt terrible . I think the issues were inlet cam switching settings which I changed and more recently the low end of the closed loop boost control - basically let the turbos actuator do its own thing initially . This is what the AFR target and active fuel tables look like now . Next step is to have a fiddle with accell and where the AF target table dips into the 13s , then see what the consumption is like . A .

Waste gate duty cycle table . A .

Thanks for the feedback , my wideband (Tech Edge WB3A2) reads lambda and I kind of wish the Vipec did too . Surely this is an option . Now , this car spends most of it's time round the burbs so I don't get much of a chance to drive on the open road - meaning better than 80 posted limits . However I did get out towards Campbelltown on the freeway the other day and the TE was reading around 095L but going rich at times with slight throttle movements . It's the transients I'm trying to get right particularly at the boost thresholds . That AFR target table was set on the rich side in recent times to get around drivability problems , now that the lowish boost area issues are not so bad I'm starting to lean out these areas and that should make a difference . It may sound silly but I sometimes set the target AFR table to a point and note the amount of correction and make alterations to the active fuel table . Also the timing table to try and home in on best torque "feel" . Trial and error is all you can do without a dyno . Yep more to do , cheers A .

These give a bit of an idea what numbers I'm running . It's starting to finally give the sorts of AFRs that look good while it feels good to drive . Note how I use retarded timing on warm up , this makes it drive much better when cool and warms up noticeably faster too . Inlet air temp when cooler likes a bit more timing which is logical . The ignition retard you can see at the top left of the timing map , all it does is remove the rich spike on closing throttle at lower revs . Yes probably with a slight time lag . To be honest I haven't tried to lean out the expressway type cruise mixtures , may have to take the missus out for a spin so I can drive the lap top . Also I'm using Nismo 740s which wouldn't be as snappy at small pulse widths as EV14s . They aren't bad but clearly not cutting edge . Micko probably did better consumption wise with an unopened Neo 25 and obviously less exhaust restriction (GT30) . Did he really have ID2000s in his skyline ? My lid has 256 Tomeis and OS exhaust valves plus a bit of smoothing in the ports . Nothing major but more aimed at performance than economy . And nope my 3076R isn't fitted yet , have everything inc Scottys nice inlet pipe bar spacer plate and dump . Altered rosters at work that include single days off , nice - not . A .

I'll try and post the PCL though not sure if my computer skills are up to that . A .

I'm not really going off on tangents , I'm trying to work around mechanical things like that turbo and part of my issues are it trying to boost from low revs . I honestly can't remember what a GTRS actuator is set to but boost control I'm guessing is doing its best to jamb the gate shut more so . If it could crack - even a little - more exhaust flow in this low rev band could stop it doing reversion things . I say reversion because , repeating here , no matter how much fuel I added in the said area the AFRs go backwards as boost rises 2000-23 2400 . Lifting the engine speed control threshold from 2000 to 2400 has made it feel better and now the AFRS tend to go richer rather than leaner as the pressure climbs in the above mentioned range . Might push that up to 2600 . Now also understand , I didn't fit and do the initial tuning Insight did and I have nothing but good things to say about Scott K . I was reluctant to play with this computer initially but he assured me that in a lowish state of tune and on E70 I wasn't likely to do any damage . To ensure this I don't play much with the on boost settings because I don't have access to a dyno . The cold starts round town and highway stuff I'll have a go at and yes the goal is to make it "feel good" . Throttle transients and climbing into boost seem to be the challenging parts as in enough fuel but not too much/little to feel good . The timing has to be in the ball park or it doesn't get to feel good . Just on timing I believe there is an optimum point to start the fire because this has a big say in when the initial pressure spike occurs and where the burn finishes . I reckon in a rapidly decelerating engine , throttle slammed shut , the dynamic compresson would be very low and with SFA air going in the only way to burn any residual fuel is to start the burn closer to TDC - retarded . Now back to boost control settings . As I mentioned I was puzzled about engine speed vs throttle position because it throws in another variable I hadn't thought of . I would have thought engine speed vs manifold pressure with coolant and air temp compensations would cover it but again I'm not a professional tuner so I don't know all the tricks . And Mr Lithium yes I understand the slight lag between the chambers and the oxygen probe and when chasing things at very low engine speeds and loads its very easy to go around in circles . Anyway the drive nice feel good is what I'm after and not throwing money out the exhaust is part of it . I'm beginning to think that RB engines won't get good consumption on ethanol fuels because they come from the era before super lean burn designs . The 25 Neo had some updates before it ended production and I think it was a sign that RBs needed to be improved or replaced . Blame the greenies . Anyway I'll have play with boost control ideas and see where that gets me , cheers A .

Old thread I know . I looked at R33 GTR spec brakes and they went to 300 x 22mm disks from the 25Ts 297 x 18 . Also the rear Brembos had 40mm pistons compared to 38.18 on the GTS25T . Slightly larger thicker discs and slightly larger pistons compared to the Rwd version . A .

My take on all of this . Brake type hydraulics work on a system of different size pistons in the master compared to the calipers . If the master piston was the same size as the calipers the pressure ratio would be 1 to 1 . You use smaller master pistons to get an increased pressure because 1 to 1 wouldn't clamp the pads on the disks nearly hard enough . The smaller the master size is for a given caliper piston size the higher the pressure ratio goes , but because the volume the master moves is less the further it's piston has to move to get the same caliper piston movement . Id say the best way to look at upgrading brakes , to a higher performance factory system , is the change it as a system meaning the four rotors calipers and master cylinder . Maybe even the booster too . Assuming the pedal box is the same then everything is sized to work together and the only remaining question is brake bias front to rear . GTRs are front heavy compared to RWD Skylines and only some of the late ones got the larger rear discs . Because of hydraulic differences between Skyline models it can be easier to go up a rotor size at the front and use caliper leg extensions to make them fit . I've seen this done to R33s to get 224mm rotors on but it may cause a bias problem and I'm not sure if there are extensions to do the same at the rear . My 2c cheers A .

Earlier on I played with the over run fuel cut but found it to be hit and miss . I'm kind of not expecting a lot of turbo response with a 0.82 GT30 hot side in that 2000-2500 area but time will tell . In the past someone else here used the same 3076R 52T 0.82 combo and reckoned it spooled like a GTRS but that's a big call I reckon . When I got back to work in the dark hours this morning I altered the closed loop boost parameters so it activates at 2400 revs rather than 2000 , does feel better at part throttle in that area now . Also put more fuel in the warm up table in the 50-70C areas to go with the warm up ignition retard , bonus as drives much better and feels as good or better than factory . Warms up faster too . I haven't in the past paid much attention to how this V66 (44 with 88 top board) was set up in the active boost table , it uses RPM vs throttle position and I'm still trying to get my head around that approach . A .

Well the thing is Lith I reckon once the user found their sweet spot the E70/E85 becomes redundant and the only reason to be flex tuned is because you can't buy E30-40 at the pump . If we could I reckon more people would have a play with ethanol because the agro is directly proportional to the percentage of ethanol vs straight ULP . Back later cheers A .

Well I think it's a challenge to remove these rich spikes if I can though I doubt it makes much difference consumption wise . Dunno - maybe slightly less ends up in the sump ? The reason I mentioned at manifold pressures below what it idles at is because the engine is not under any kind of load there so you don't get any drivability issues . This is in the sub 2500 rev band BTW . Don't remember off hand which way I went with timing at sub 37 kpa (absolute) , whichever burnt the fuel rather than sending it through unburnt giving a momentary rich reading . I really like the way you can set up your own table reference numbers with the Vipec because it lets you experiment with things when you can expand resolution in narrow ranges . My issue with consumption is that for a car that's not ordinarily driven real hard 16/100 isn't very good . As you know there are different ways of achieving measured AFRs because alterations to timing affects mixtures . Charge air temperature/density does too . Its trying to strike a balance of good drivability and throttle response without using any extra fuel if it doesn't do anything worthwhile . Obviously the roads to good consumption are getting the most heat/pressure from the least fuel in part throttle use . Part throttle meaning partially strangled engine that can't fill it's cylinders too well resulting in a low dynamic or effective CR . This is probably why ethanol gives worse consumption - needing more of it (to a point) to generate enough heat to get acceptable combustion pressure in low effective CR situations . The modern trend is towards higher CRs because they lead to higher effective compression at part throttle meaning better combustion efficiency and consumption . Using a smallish turbo doesn't help much because the hotside is trying to spin it up and its right where I spend a lot of time round the burbs ie 2100-2300 revs . So , low effective compression and a waste gate that isn't open because it isn't running at full boost forming an exhaust restriction . Loose loose . It is amusing being able to squeeze the throttle in higher gears in that rev rage and get boost and torque but it's questionable if an RB25 needs help in that area . I suppose I could look at the boost table and back it off to actuator pressure in the low 2000 rev band to see if it helps there . Like all self taught tuners I get better results than I used to and reasonable settings get better part throttle performance than in the past . Having got that I need to move to a bigger turbo hot side to let the engine breathe out and work more efficiently off boost or actually where it doesn't need it . Nowdays you wouldn't buy a GTRS new when say a GTX3067R can get same or better performance and be better flowing on the exhaust side . Lastly yes on "feel" always prefer the drive characteristics to feel good . Foot/butt dyno is a good reference to how well your car drives in round town use . My experience is that if drivability is poor consumption usually is too . A few things to try , cheers A .

I partially solved the rich spike problem by changing timing settings at manifold pressures below that at idle , lift off low pressure spikes if you know what I mean . It sort of works but not at very low revs . I think my side feeds are a bit lazy at very small pulse widths , it shows about 1ms at warm idle . Also by retarding the cold start timing (Ign angle vs ECT table in ignition corrections) I got it to warm up faster . I suspect theres something in this slightly rich slightly retarded settings at times when trying to generate a bit more heat and pressure and not just for warm up . A .

I think Xspurt do a 740 based on the kompact (short) EV14K . ID do an 850 GM based on the short EV14s as well . Actually the ID1300s are shorty's as well from memory . Short EV14s do fit under the plenum on a 33 spec RB25 but you need a rail to suit 14mm injectors . People say modified RB25 Neo rails can work with a bit of stuffing around . A .

Direction injection is the way to do that but the main issue is that production engines are primarily designed to burn unleaded petrol . To get better returns from ethanol you need higher compression ratios and probably a swag of changes to petrol burner designs . Sadly there isn't enough overall interest in high ethanol content fuels because Joe Average wants the absolute cheapest running costs - and he won't get it running E85 in a petrol spec engine - even if it is a flex fuel vehicle . Briefly , people bring up WMI and aircraft engines from the 1940s . Before the allies got the upper hand the Brits didn't have what we would call high octane aviation fuel so they had to resort to WMI to jam higher boost into engines for higher performance . Later RR Merlins had two speed two stage superchargers on them to get sea level performance at high altitudes (for a prop job) . Later the yanks imported higher octane av gas , think it was something like 130 or 150 octane rating - possibly shit loads of TEL . In the turbo F1 era WMI disappeared when higher octane race "fuels" became available and regulating race "fuel" was probably what had the most to do with banning turbo engines in the late 80s and 1990s . More octane more boost more power . A .

Reinventing a square wheel . Can't see the point of strangling a 2.4L engine with 2L ports/valves/chambers/manifolds . Its a bit like the people who started out with RB30s years ago with a much modified RB20 head . Spark fired diesel . The practical economically viable solution is an RB25 Neo motor n box , that is serviced with - factory RB25 Neo bits . If GTR is the dream just buy one , I doubt you could build one cheaper than you can buy one . And if you could it isn't a real one . A .

I honestly can't remember if I ever ran the Evo from full to empty , hard keeping the battery charged these days . 99.5% drive the Skyline everywhere . Evo uses United 100 BTW . A .

Umm Guilt I don't know if using a GT28 turbo is such a good idea on an RB25 , probably a different story on an RB20 . It's possible that having a turbo that's "responsive" from down low doesn't really help a 25 where fuel costs are a consideration . One spot I find difficult to tune my engine is in the 22-2300 area , the more I open up the more the AFRs go backwards no matter what numbers I punch into the V44 (66) plug in . It could be because boost isn't up to regulated pressure and the housing by itself can't flow enough resulting in reversions . (EDIT - might try switching off the cam solenoid in this small speed/load area if Vipec will let me .) Different story higher up rev and boost wise where the gate opens and combined flow is greater . Also by 2200 odd revs that's in 5th uphill at 80 clicks . Not that many people choose to drive like that but I try all different loads and revs trying to get the tune right . The pending 0.82 GT3076R should change things here . Obviously standard cars with tiny turbos and exhausts cope somehow but its not just the turbo restricting the works . Things I find interesting about WMI is people saying their engines run cooler overall as in coolant and the manifold etc is cool to touch . I find my indicated air inlet temps don't take much to climb up into the 30s and 40s in traffic though that could be the probe getting radiated and absorbed heat from the std cast crossover pipe . Maybe it should be further out in the air plumbing . Anyway you'd think cool dense air would be best even without positive manifold pressure , obviously not at real light loads . I dunno if WMI is the answer if you are after every last individual Kw and Nm , if really desperate for that then methanol would be better than ethanol because its stoic I think is in the 6s so hosing in possibly twice as much for the same heat as ULP and getting greater evaporative cooling than ethanol . I assume methanol is even more water absorbing than ethanol and everybody says more corrosive as well . My mate tells me ethanol is really a specialised fuel compared to petrol and possibly half the agro of methanol with half the benefits , especially the pump eth with 15-30% ULP . When you think about it the ULP in E70/85 is just there to remove the worst aspects of ethanol ie cold starting and I suppose the lack of lube for roller cell fuel pumps and injectors . Also there are issues with heat and fuel tank pressurisation in flex fuelled cars . If you were keen to talk up WMI you would probably think these are the plusses compared to having an E85 system . 1) Can get by with less pump and possibly the 20a wiring to power it . 2) Less fuel circulating and transferring heat to the fuel tank . 3) Less injector so possibly better low speed fuel control . 4) Fuel/water , readily available and cheaper in lower octane . 5) Fuel consumption - maybe 20-30% better depending on use , or 11-12/100 vs 16 ? 6) Every day could be a cool damp one for your engine , not necessarily your tyres . 7) Engine internals steam cleaned though ethanol is supposed to do the same thing . The flip side is a burnt engine if it fails so a bit more effort to keep the system in good order . The level of damage when the mist stops would depend on what level of protection the WMI gave and how much detonation set in . Protections I've read about are filters and pressure or flow sensors and switching for possibly map or boost control changes . Controls . Some like AEM offer controllers that use manifold pressure referenced switch on/full boost points . Their alternative uses things like injector duty or MAP/MAF voltages to control pump speed . Good engine management systems with enough outputs should offer more sophisticated strategies , Guilt would know what a Vipec can do to control WMI . Could it also switch into safe maps if the WMI system layed down ? Since Mr Mafia built and dyno tuned his own car I'd really like to hear what his current opinion is on WMI . More input plz , cheers Adrian .

Hi all , I've been reading up on water/water methanol injection of late because no matter what I do I can't get acceptable consumption out of E70 in a daily driven GTS25T . I'm not the worlds best road tuner but I can get my car to start cold and drive quite well around the burbs . Most of my driving is in traffic and the AC isn't used much . I think standard V8s do better than I do , topped off last night and got around 110 km out of 18L of E70 . Back when I was using the PFC and trying all different eth blends I could do much better on home blended E30/98 but it's a pain doing custom mixes . Since you can't buy fuel like this at the pump , and in places can't get E70/85 at all , I started looking at alternatives and a mate who hates ethanol suggested water/water meth injection . It's probably best to weigh the pros and conns of each and see which has the best overall fit for those interested . E70/85 . Fact is that you need to inject maybe 25-30% more because per volume it doesn't generate as much heat as petrol . Pricing of E70/85 is a rip because ethanol is much cheaper to produce than ULP , when it's cheap it's around 1.20/L and I haven't looked of late but I'm guessing when cheap 98 ULP is maybe 1.50 + /L . 30c on 1.50 is not 25-30% so you get burnt on the heat content of what you buy as E70/85 . I'd say the on/off throttle traffic driving really shows up the downside of ethanols lower heat generation and at the end of the day heat IS power . The advantage of ethanol is less heat when heat and pressure lead to detonation , using that extra 25-30% of fluid obviously increases charge cooling . Obtaining pump E70/85 is easy provided you have at least two or three local servos selling it . W/WMI . This has been around for a long time and we know it works effectively at charge cooling and detonation suppression . In it's favour water is cheap and alcohol is not that hard to get . It's probably possible to use methanol ethanol and maybe even metho at a pinch . From what I read W/WMI is really good at charge cooling and this is a plus overall . My big question is does it work well enough to use really low octane fuels such as straight 91 ULP and give E70 type results , or at the least better than 98ULP results ? I know some people have the idea that higher octane ULP is king and no self respecting propeller head would ever use 91 oct cows piss . But the thing is the main difference between 91 and 98 , so I'm told , is anti nock additives blended in to increase it's detonation resistance . Basically things that make it harder to ignite so it's mainly your ignition system lighting the fire . As we know even 98 detonates when the combustion heat and pressure get beyond certain points . The downside of W/WMI is that once you tune an engine for it you lose the charge cooling and detonation suppression if it chooses not to work - for any reason . To be engine reliable you'd have to have fail safes or an EMS that can haul the timing back if serious detonation set in . What either system is about is detonation resistance so more power friendly timing can be used and or higher boost pressures if that's your thing . I think if you want power and reasonable fuel consumption the go is to use a cheaper fuel that could give good light throttle low load heat generation and find ways to raise the detonation threshold enough to still make good power . In a way using E70/85 all the time is a bit like using race oct ULP all the time - expensive octane for shit when you don't need it which is a lot of the time . IMO if you can add effective octane cheaply and easily you get the best of both worlds . I need to read up on WMI with low octane ULP vs a mid grade like 95 because 91 WMI idea may not work out overall . Mafias findings are the ones I keep coming back to because his results were so good for the GTS25T/GT3076R 0.63 IW/95 ULP/WMI setup . He did say his WMI system was a bit crude and the component quality was just so . Later systems from mobs like AEM Snow and Aquamist etc look to be better made and have more fail safes built in . I do like burning ethanol and it does smell better than ULP , it probably is more environmentally friendly but at the end of the day you use more of it and the oil co's are ripping you off selling a cheap product expensively . We don't get blended pumps in Oz like they do in the US so you can't buy and tune blends in the 30 to 50% range . If we had these and the ULP component had a fixed octane rating you could have a reliable flex tune done and find you own sweet spot . So , can we have sensible discussion based on facts and findings so we can all learn something and benefit from it . Really not interested in "power costs bro build the bridge" . Some of us aren't interested in bleeding edge performance but want more than standard cars have - and be able to feed the ride anywhere affordably . 16/100 is not acceptable in a 2.5L daily that isn't thrashed everywhere , cheers Adrian .

Going to start another thread on WI/WMI VS E70/85 because E70 consumption shits me up the wall . A .

The ERF 7163 has been in the development phase for a long time now and it's finally in production and should be available very soon . The 7163 is the largest capacity of the smaller or B1 frame size EFR turbos and it was initially supposed to extend the performance of their 6758 by about 50 Hp . When it was announced people wondered why bother with a 71mm compressor and a 63mm turbine when BW already had a larger frame EFR 7064 turbocharger . The answer is that the B1 turbos are more compact and have a smaller inlet boss size - basically easier packaging . Compared to other EFRs the 7163 has a unique mixed flow turbine wheel which is leaning more towards being an axial rather than radial inlet style turbine . The final version is also getting an aluminium centre section which makes the unit about two pounds lighter , light is good and rusty iron never looked pretty . Compressor housing is the same as the existing B1 turbos . Exhaust housings will be different because BW went to a lot of trouble to make the 7163s hot side light responsive and wide ranging for it's size . Also stainless is much easier to weld than high Nickel content iron . From what I read there will be a twin entry T4 flanged IW turbine housing in 0.80 AR . I think there will also be a couple of open or single scroll turbine housings in V band style and a flanged one as well . Full Race Geoff has only good things to say about the 7163 and recently mentioned that the way to max hot side flow could be with the single scroll housing which some think will be a 0.85ish IW T3 flanged one . Power potential is said to be in the 5-600 Hp range with response not like anything we've seen before . Turbo junkies the world over are holding out for this 7163 because the power range it's aimed at is where most propeller heads realistically want to be with a souped up roadie . With engines in the 1800 to maybe 3000cc range and beyond it should be the ducks guts . FR has been developing kits to put them on Ford 3.5L direct injection Eco Boost petrol engines and the results speak for themselves . For RB20s and 25s you would expect the 7163 to solve the response/power issues you at times get when using Garrett or similar turbos eg 3071R 3076R and the GTX versions . Fingers crossed we'll get GTRS response and maybe GT3576R potential . Looking forward to real world results , cheers Adrian .

I'm going to start another thread specifically about the due to be released EFR 7163 . Many have waited a long time for this turbocharger because it promises so much and fingers crossed it will deliver . A .