Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

that means your tyres need replacing.

i ran 330rwkw and had little traction issues using street 225's.

skated a tad @ the top end of each gear. Otherwise in my book it was nothing.

I've seen poorly setup stock R33's get more wheelspin.

all in suspension and tyres.

As for your question about torque... i doubt many here have had thier motor on an engine dyno to be able to accurately answer that.

Dynos are a tuning tool... worse if you try using the torque figures

What does the R31 have leaf springs??? LOL

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

good post

im about 200rwkw, and its probably too much for just a street car

just a quick blip and you are pretty much over the speed limit

theres not many roads around where u can enjoy the power without exceeding the speed limit

id love to make more power if i hit the track, but as my line is our daily driver and it needs to be on the road, it probably will never happen

i wont be powering her up anymore i dont think

This is why I went the 3ltr... Improve that 0-speed limit acceleration by minimising lag and increasing low engine speed torque.

Idling up off the line the 3ltr really does haul arse with the skylines low diff ratio's.

Idling and simply popping the clutch with wot will have it accelerating off the line quicker than the usual LS1 V8, the V8's tend to bog down and lag a little before reving up.

LS2's its around par on as they do seem to ave quite a bit more of a lunge at low rpm.

My uncle has a 250i 6speed LS1 that really does feel rather gutless at low rpm compared to mine.

a track car obviously means a high revving 2.7 -> 3.0 with large twins ?

Even then, on slower tracks, it will most likely get munched.

i just meant a car that is only used on the track.

for a perfect street car i think u will need round 280-300rwkw. i have 260 at the moment and it feels a little slow after a while. definately going to upgrade to something bigger

You guys are all crazy...:(

Ok, i owuld love a GT3 Porka as a street car. It would be lucky to have 250kws at the wheels!

Even with 200rwkws you cant even rev out 3rd gear...If its a street car, the more power you have the sooner you will find yourself in a world of trouble ...which is no fun.

If you use your car for somethin other thenA-B day to day driving, lol the more power the better :P

my vl had rb25, t70, plenum, microtech, fuel system, gate etc etc....

270rwkw on 13psi in a 1300kg car was scary, but it still wasnt enough ;)

enough to light up the rears at over 100kmph but still not enough.

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

    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
    • But I think you missed mine.. there is also nothing about the 98 spec that supports your claim..  according to the fuel standards, it can be identical to 95, just very slightly higher octane number. But the ulp vs pulp fuel regulations go show 95 (or 98), is not just 91 with some additives. any claim of ‘refined by the better refineries’ or ‘higher quality fuel’ is just hearsay.  I have never seen anything to back up such claims other than ‘my mate used to work for a fuel station’, or ‘drove a fuel delivery truck’, or ‘my mechanic says’.. the actual energy densities do slightly vary between the 3 grades of fuel, but the difference is very minor. That said, I am very happy to be proven wrong if anyone has some hard evidence..
    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
×
×
  • Create New...