Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what do you guys think of cutting the standard plenum and running the throttle body from, the front it would reduce heaps of pipe work and make it more responsive and if done what vacume pipes could be disgarded

Edited by xxx_25L

hahahah, you flew right off the rails with that one! You quite clearly missed my point, but you almost got there. Good try.

Don't be so defensive, this is a discussion forum, so discuss. Encourage conversation, don't put people down.

Try thinking about what people say, rather than interpreting things so black and white. What makes you so sure that the meaning you took from my statement was the one I intended?

Lastly, if what I was thinking was "stupid", I would not have thought it necessary to add it to the "discussion".

:D

now that's a stupid response!....there's money in everything..geez u might as well say why upgrade your turbo or why are they selling them..to make money duh!... lets just do research for the sake of it...hahahahhahaha.....ffs...
Edited by Turbo Tits
hahahah, you flew right off the rails with that one! You quite clearly missed my point, but you almost got there. Good try.

Don't be so defensive, this is a discussion forum, so discuss. Encourage conversation, don't put people down.

Try thinking about what people say, rather than interpreting things so black and white. What makes you so sure that the meaning you took from my statement was the one I intended?

Lastly, if what I was thinking was "stupid", I would not have thought it necessary to add it to the "discussion".

:laugh:

as u can see i was laughing and im still laughing....hahahahahahahah im not defensive im discussing the topic on hand..hahahahahahha....

i have 1 tommie inlet cam (256) so thats good then.

i tink i will setal with a isp (arial) plenum they seam to be the pics of the group.

i think i could make good power with the standard manifold but i wanna make power with as litle boost/effort posible.

the less restriction the less boost so i mite go 1 of them

Im currently in the midst of doing a full GTR ITB Conversion to my RB25 including custom manifold (leaning towards a plazmaman plenum) will keep you posted on before and after results if you are interested.

I know they wont be specifically related to the plenum alone as the ITB's are bound to make some difference but at least it will give you some scope of a real world application.

Turbo = T67-25g - Currently pulls around 500rwhp

keep us updated.

also i wanna know how it all fits up and all that jaz chuck up some pics when your done.

the latest zoom mag has 1 of there plenums in it and it looks ok but it all depends on how it works

keep us updated.

also i wanna know how it all fits up and all that jaz chuck up some pics when your done.

the latest zoom mag has 1 of there plenums in it and it looks ok but it all depends on how it works

Ive had to use a CNC machined adaptor to make it fit correctly ($500 from japland) and switch my fuel rail and injectors for GTR Items to suit... will definitely keep you posted. SHould come up a treat once its done.

So its 10psi and not 8psi now eh?

Which version of the story are we to believe?

But you are in the US remember, the figures are somewhat "higher", your 50rwkw is around our 30, which then (going to 10psi/management) is whats expected

Have you ever done this same build up and tested it on the same exact dyno to get readings? I have.

I am not sure if you read my first post correctly or not, but I said that it was at 10 psig up to about 6K, then all the way to 7500, it fell to 8 psig. At 8 PSIG at 7500, it made 310rwhp, which is 235rwkw.

You are in America.

Its impossible to compare, especially 235rwkw from 8psi.

If you wanna do accurate testing, bring the car over here and you'll see your 235 fall to around 180-170

With 235rwkw you'd better be dipping WELL into the mid-12 sec brakcet.

Look forward to you strip results. But i suspect you wont get better than a mid-low 13.

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

    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...