Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. I was wondering how much boost the standard rb25 turbo can hold b4 dieing. I have read here some ppl saying 14psi, while others say anything over 12psi 'makes no difference because the turbo is working past its efficiency'

I know this has beens asked b4.Yes I did do a search but there seems to be conflicting answers. does anyone know for sure, is 14 psi too much? i wanna know because i will be replacing the bleed valve with an Electronic BC and getting the car tuned so wanted to raise the boost a bit more. And also if the turbo can handle 14psi will that increased amount of fuel entering the motor be fine as far as the standard fuel pump etc is concerned or will that need to be upgraded. Thanks :O

nah, at 14psi I think the exhaust wheel can just shatter... spinning too fast.

12 is the commonly quoted "maximum" you would ever want to run, but to expect much shorter lifespan out of the turbo.

10 is the safety level that people run their stockers at.

Having said that though, i've seen guys say they run their stock turbo at 14psi every day for 2 years with no problems.

Depends if you want to take the risk for the extra power or not. I'm still running 7psi using a manual controller, and might go up to 10 once I have my exhaust sorted.

Matt Spry tuned my car when i bought my pfc...

He set my SBC ID-III to 13.4 psi and said not a peeny more and not a penny less...

He did clearify that the tune needs to be almost perfect to keep it reliable... If you do a dodgy tune you will break it...

It achieved a round 200rwkw with really impressive responce...

Then from there i was not happy so i spent 7 grand on a bottom end and new turbo...

I ran my stocker at 14-15-16-17psi for a few days trying to break it and i could not break it...

Its the heat that kills the turbo mate and boost for extented periods generates heat so for short burts you could probably get away with 14psi. On a tack day mind you people have seen these turbos let go at 10psi.

After 10-12psi the turbo is running out of effecincy you may gain an extra 5-10 rwkw but is that little extra power worth risking the turbo for? I think not personally, I run 10.5psi max and dont plan to run any more boost than this.

cheers

i find the stock turbo a great all rounder. i have no issues with keeping up with cars on the street, although single spinner diff is annoying. can take down xr8's, xr6turbo's, and the usual stack of vlts and what not. 0 to 100 in 4.88 but pretty crappy 1/4 due to single spinner and cold track

I understand that long periods of time running high pis like 14-16 or what ever will break the turbo.

I just could not do it...

I ran 3-4 track days at 13.4psi and never had an issue...

Im not saying that the turbo is great and you get heaps of power, thats why i upgraded to a gt30 but the stock turbo is good for 200rwkw all day...

There is conflicting information because there isn’t one solid answer that fits ever car, every driver and every situation. The right answer is, it depends on how well the car is tuned, what it is used for and what it is driven like. Ceramic in the cat disease is caused by three things working together, heat, torque and turbo shaft rpm. There are various combinations of the 3 causes, but lots of all 3 is certain death.

So I boil it down to 3 answers;

1. The guys that actually USE the power that 12 psi (or so) generates. They have killed a turbo or 2, and found that for what they use the car for, 10 psi is about as high as they can go before its ceramic in the cat time. They know from experience that the 10 psi keeps the shaft rpm down. So their continual hard driving may build up heat, but the shaft speed is low enough so the turbine survives. The lower boost means less torque loading on the turbine blades (turning the compressor). The car makes good power because it is tuned with reasonably lean (power making) A/F ratios.

2. The guys that cruise around and hardly ever use the 12 psi (or so). They give it a burst occasionally for a second or two. The car makes good power because it is tuned with reasonably lean (power making) A/F ratios. But they don’t really USE the power for any length of time. So the heat doesn’t build up. Hence they get away with the higher boost.

3. The cars that run 12 psi (or so) but run rather rich, so they don’t really develop the power to justify running 12 psi (or so). They can run the boost for reasonable periods because rich A/F ratios = a cooler turbine. Similarly they get away with the higher boost.

So the answer is which category do you belong to?

Personally I’m a #1, a few laps of the circuit at a supersprint or a track day or a long blast up Mooney Mooney Hill and I would kill a turbine, if I used more than 10psi. Take a look at the other responses and judge for yourself what category they fall into.

:P cheers :O

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...