Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I was playing around with the timing on my car at Eastern Creek on sunday and I can tell you that 5 degrees of extra timing is a shipload of extra power so I think it is certainly worthwhile dropping the boost a little and seeing how much more timing you can stuff in there.

Not only that but if you add a bunch of timing to your lower revs you should be able to get your turbo spooling a little earlier too.

Interesting article Cubes.

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes Cubes if not too much trouble . Others here may be interested to see views of its collector if you can get some light into it . I think someone in the US recently posted pics here of an RB with that manifold and a GT30R turbo (sadly with a T31 exhaust housing) on it . Gives everyone an idea of turbo placement and how its slightly different to std .

Cheers A .

post-9594-1160446966.jpg

post-9594-1160464287.jpg

post-9594-1160464305.jpg

post-9594-1160464328.jpg

post-9594-1160464351.jpg

Edited by discopotato03

Re ignition timing

What fuel did you use when on the dyno?

What fuel is the guy running 24deg using?

What was the knock reading on the PFC?

There are a lot of things which come into play with tuning and avoiding knock and ignition timing is a big one.

I wouldn't be too worried about another guy running more timing than you. Each engine is different and they all like slightly different things.

His car may be tuned on the edge whereas yours might be backed off a little for longevity.

I don't have an rb25 but a single turbo 1jz and I have only tuned up to 18psi but I run 17deg at peak torque to 19 at redline at that boost. 26psi has 15deg at peak torque and 17 at redline. This is using shell 100RON fuel with martini super boost.

Re ignition timing

What fuel did you use when on the dyno?

What fuel is the guy running 24deg using?

What was the knock reading on the PFC?

There are a lot of things which come into play with tuning and avoiding knock and ignition timing is a big one.

I wouldn't be too worried about another guy running more timing than you. Each engine is different and they all like slightly different things.

His car may be tuned on the edge whereas yours might be backed off a little for longevity.

I don't have an rb25 but a single turbo 1jz and I have only tuned up to 18psi but I run 17deg at peak torque to 19 at redline at that boost. 26psi has 15deg at peak torque and 17 at redline. This is using shell 100RON fuel with martini super boost.

we were both running 98 octane pump fuel

all the runs i did untill the last one knock was only reading up to 12, the last run was 32.

the car had been on the dyno for over an hour so plenty of heat soak etc.

im thinking about either changing front bars or attacking my bar with the 9 inch grinder to let more air to the intercooler. i know it will help to get the intake air as cold as possible.

i was also thinking maybe a plazmaman plenum may reduce the heat soak from going over the engine.

I don't think going over the engine will hurt your intake temps. The air isn't there for long enough to transfer the heat.

Feel free to hack your front bar though.

32 knock is still bugger all. 12 is nothing. Push it and see.

dangerman4,

The plenum and heatsoak really isn't an issue as on wot the air moves in and out of there so damn quick that it has so very very limited time to absorb heat.

You would be much much much better off spending the $$ on a nice exh. manifold.

Regarding knock.. From my experience its not really linear. You tune it and get x knock no matter how much ign you punch in (providing its not massively retarded) I find the few pfc's I've watched + mine tend to get up around 30-45ish depending on the engine and knock sensors. Following that if you dial in 1 more degree it will spike to 70+ and ping. Its not like as you approach detonation the knock levels slowly rise. Well not from my experience anyway.

Discopotatohead (and anyone else for that matter) - I need some advice.

I currently have the GT30r with the 7 blade to4s wheel, and a RB25 turbo ground out to fit. Come on 15psi at 3200rpm in second. Motor is standard. Running about 112mph

I want to go bigger (to this GT35) but I have a few questions

1. Will a ground out Rb25 ex Housing made to fit a GT30 fit the GT35?

2. Is that a bad idea? Or is it possible until I get my built RB30 or RB25 up and running?

3. I want minimal lag, would the Garrett .63 housing be a good choice?

3a. What would its top end be limited to if Running a built RB30

3b. What would the top end be limited to if running a built RB25?

4. I have a Compressor cover on the GT30 which is .7. Its got a Custom bend welded onto it. Could I just buy a GT35 with a .7 Comp cover and swap them?

If you haven't relised yet, I'm really trying to do a direct swap from GT30 to 35. I'm hoping the oil and water lines are the same size and location, and the cartridge is similar etc.

Apologies if some questions sound stupid.

Edited by The Mafia

Mafia... I think your better off grabbing one of garretts internal gate turbine housings.

For the street I consider the GT35r .82 on an RB30 with a 5speed only 'just' bearable. That counts out the GT35r on an rb25 UNLESS its behind an auto which makes a massive difference as to the way the turbo comes on. To be honest a GT35r .82 behind an rb25 auto feels similiar to that of a GT35r on an 5speed Rb30. Its quite freaked out how the turbo loves the auto.

Behind the RB25 5speed used for the street... I would go the GT30r running the 76mm 56t comp wheel; .82 internal gate turbine housing, possible grab one of ROGUEPI on ebay (who's AMOSITE here on SAU).

He flogs the internal gate GT30r's for the low to mid 1700's. The GT35r internal gates go for high 1700's. So well priced.

GT3540r Internal

GT3040r Internal

He had the GT3076 floating around yesterday, can't find it right now. :teehee:

and the port shroud adaptor he does.

Steve who used to own an r33 some years ago ran a HKS3037S which is essentially the GT30r 76mm 56t comp wheel with a nice little comp cover. RoguePI sells little insert bits that bolt in to your comp cover inlet to make it similiar to that of the HKS comp housing. Running 23psi I think it was, cams, plenum, exh. manifold he made 323rwkw. Also on a stock bottom end that had a thicker headgasket slotted in to drop the static comp. :happy:

Ran well and never let go. He ended up returning the car to stock and selling.

I'm not sure if its possible to use the same comp cover; I'm guessing yours is the 52t 82mm comp wheel? The GT3540r's run the 56t comp wheel. Disco will know. :(

Discopotatohead (and anyone else for that matter) - I need some advice.

I currently have the GT30r with the 7 blade to4s wheel, and a RB25 turbo ground out to fit. Come on 15psi at 3200rpm in second. Motor is standard. Running about 112mph

I want to go bigger (to this GT35) but I have a few questions

1. Will a ground out Rb25 ex Housing made to fit a GT30 fit the GT35?

2. Is that a bad idea? Or is3. I want minimal lag, would the Garrett .63 housing be a good choice? it possible until I get my built RB30 or RB25 up and running?

3a. What would its top end be limited to if Running a built RB30

3b. What would the top end be limited to if running a built RB25?

4. I have a Compressor cover on the GT30 which is .7. Its got a Custom bend welded onto it. Could I just buy a GT35 with a .7 Comp cover and swap them?

If you haven't relised yet, I'm really trying to do a direct swap from GT30 to 35. I'm hoping the oil and water lines are the same size and location, and the cartridge is similar etc.

Apologies if some questions sound stupid.

thanks cubes, thats helpful also.

I'll see what discopotatohead says about the internals of the turbo.

This sounds a little too good to be true?

Past applications and results:

We have had excellent results with these turbo's including my own 200sx making 330 rw kw on a dyno dynamic's dyno on about 26 psi. Fitting to an R33 RB25 det with RB30 bottom end (a good friend of mine owns this car), full boost is reached at 2200 rpm and 300 rw kw on only 17 psi on run in tune.

Edited by The Mafia

Mafia difficult to say . From other peoples experiences head work seems to do really good things to RB25's and it seems logical that what works for 2.5L would work for 3L . I would think seriously about porting particularly on the exhaust side and researching larger exhaust valves . I would not go under 9.0 CR if I could help it , these things are aimed at pulling up the bottom end pre boost so you get reasonable squirt before the turbo gets cracking . What most people want on the street is torque so breathing and being able to run advanced timimg is what it takes IMO . I hate soggy engines with huge turbos and a farts worth of static CR because the power curve is waitin waitin waitin WHAM why has my car swapped ends ?

The GT3582R is not a bad thing though its getting a bit big for a stockish RB25 . While the 25's std cast manifold may not be a huge exhaust flow limiter for upwards of 280 + Kw it does force the gasses through a number of tight bends which is hardly ideal . A straighter shot from the ports to the turbo is preferable and my choice (play it again sam) would be the HKS cast low mount manifold . Everything you can do to reduce flow restriction means more thermal gas expansion velocity energy with which to drive the turbos turbine . I believe this manifold is an oldie but a goodie if you're sticking with the RB25 head and intend to use a T3 flanged turbo .

If you were undecided if the 3L conversion was going ahead the GT35R is probably a bit much for a daily driver . One thing I've never seen on a GT35R is a port shrouded compressor cover . HKS do this to a lot of their turbos and I'm beginning to think it may have some response benefits . As far as the .63AR ratio exhaust housing goes I would not use it . The extra restriction it causes kills the fun once the turbo gets going . The centre section of the GT35R is the same dimensions as every GT BB down to the GT25 series .

I think you first need to decide which bottom end to go with and use bits to suit its capacity . I'd leave the turbo selection till last .

Hi everyone..

as disco has allready mentioned a couple of times i wouldnt bother with the .63 a/r exhaust housing on a gt35 comp cover.. it will surge like a bitch...

My old gt3071r-sp will be for sale shortly with custom dump and intake, i sent it back to gcg for a clean and tidy up so i can sell it and be assured it would do the job for a fellow SAU member.

My cars going in tommorrow to MV automatics for a new upgraded shift kit install.

3rd gear solenoid has been giving me grief.

easy fix.

Hey cubes last time you were in the muppet bus it was only on around 240kws, if your not to busy over the weekend give me a ring and i will show you its potential after a tune.

i quess i need someone to hold the video!!!

Dangerman....just as an aside, what power did you make out of your old turbo set up?

Just looking at bang for bucks.

ive seen 273kws at the wheels, without much fine tuneing on the dyno.

also with Auto,standard head and cams and standard plenum.

with a few more goodys and on a manual it should get up to 290 / 300kws

I took a good look at the dual outlet flange available for the new GT wastegated housings. While it looks like a very nice idea... does anyone think the flow from the wastegate would be pretty damn turbulent?

ATP-FLS-075_450-2.jpg

Have a look at this. You can see as the wastegate flapper opens up, the gas is going to spew sideways and create some serious turbulence as it tries to exit the relatively small 2" exit on the flange. Moreover due to the way the flapper opens into the exit, its half blocking the exit too.

internalgate_option.jpg

This is a reference picture to illustrate how much area the small 2" discharge hole is covering.

What do you guys think? Maybe an open ended dump is better?

Edited by Busky2k
I took a good look at the dual outlet flange available for the new GT wastegated housings. While it looks like a very nice idea... does anyone think the flow from the wastegate would be pretty damn turbulent?

ATP-FLS-075_450-2.jpg

Have a look at this. You can see as the wastegate flapper opens up, the gas is going to spew sideways and create some serious turbulence as it tries to exit the relatively small 2" exit on the flange. Moreover due to the way the flapper opens into the exit, its half blocking the exit too.

internalgate_option.jpg

This is a reference picture to illustrate how much area the small 2" discharge hole is covering.

What do you guys think? Maybe an open ended dump is better?

thats why you dont bother spending shit loads of money on the dump flange that they are using and just buy a flange from horsepowerinabox or similar. with my dump i have fully tig welded the 2 inch and the 3 inch to the flange then ground out all around the wasegate so it flows in nice and smooth, not just thru the 2 inch hole. it seems to work really well and i dont have any boost issues at all. i will try and find a pic

now imagine the 2 triangles on either side between the 2 inch and the 3 inch were filled up with weld, then attacked with a die grinder and opened up to the same size as the exhaust housing.. problem fixed....

flows fine..

post-24852-1160884111.jpg

Nice info dangerman4. I agree that the result you speak of would be much better than the small 2" opening that ATP is offering. You don't happen to have a pic of the final result do you???

Nice info dangerman4. I agree that the result you speak of would be much better than the small 2" opening that ATP is offering. You don't happen to have a pic of the final result do you???

sorry fella i was very happy with the fit and the eagerness to try something that hadnt been done before (and the beer) sort of took over. and i got a little side tracked. before i thought about taking a pic it was all in and running.

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

    • Nah, if I need to fit people in a car I'll just use the Mrs car, the MX5 is perfect for what I need as a fun little sports car for fun on the street As for getting in and out of the MX5, I have no issues as I am a short arse who does lots of mobility training 🥷 If anything, I have been looking at Daihatsu Hi-Jets for a work hack, I helped one of my mates move some stuff with one recently that he picked up from Just Jap, it was a little ripper and plenty big enough for what we needed, it would also be super handy for me as I do alot of gardening, and plan on having some veggie patches and native gardens in the place I buy next year when I retire I did alot landscape gardening and growing veggies prior to my current job, and loved it, and that is a hobby that can keep me sane in my retirement, and as such, the little 300kg load capacity would be more than enough for what I need it to move around I have been looking at utes for just this purpose for a while now, and a near new 2024 Hi-Jet can be had for under $30k And I would rather look at a quirky little Hi-Jet than pretty much any other little ute, well, apart from a Brumby, I love the little Brumby, and weirdly have never owned one yet I was going to buy a heap of raffle tickets to try and win the Brumby that MCM built for Subaru Australia, but sadly I totally missed the raffle, I even filled in some form to be told when the raffle started so I could buy tickets, but to my dismay I was never contacted and found out I missed it when I was randomly googling Brumbys last year... #conspiracy  Maybe I should just buy a Brumby for a little "work hack".....LOL I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure
    • Well.... it's not just "de-oxygenating". If you do that you just have, most likely, ethane. So you still need to do a synthesis step to combine a number of ethanes/ethanols to make circa-8-chain hydrocarbons. And of course you don't want straight chain HCs, because n-octane actually has a negative octane rating (ie, it's worse even than the n-heptane which sets the zero on the octane scale!), so you have to do some tricky catalytic chemistry to synthesise branched HCs. That's all doable - but it doesn't come for free. And.... it starts with ethanol, which is an agricultural product, and there will almost certainly never be enough of that as a base stock to replace the liquid fuels that are in use. You really wouldn't want to be planning to be using any more ethanol for fuels than is currently already used (in E10, E85s, etc). And ideally you'd be looking to reduce such usage, as it is largely wasteful, particularly in the stupid-ole'US-of-A where the corn lobby has organised it so that it's actually primary production corn that is used to make a lot of the ethanol, not by-products and waste, like it is (mostly) elsewhere. So, what I said about needing free-ish energy probably still applies. True synth fuels would be made from H2 and CO2, in a near reversal of the combustion process. In fact, given that the H2 would be split from water first, it actually is a complete reversal of the combustion process. But...energy intensive. The human race burns something like 1 cubic MILE of crude oil, after it has been made into various fuels. Every year. That's a simply stupendous amount of energy. Just assume that the density is 900 kg/m3, and that the calorific value is 45 MJ/kg, then that is 165.9 x10^12 MJ of energy. Or more than 10^19 Joules. You get a maximum of 1 kJ/s per square meter solar radiation falling on the planet's surface, and so if you halve that for daylight, and halve it again for average weather (highly optimistic) and then take ~25% for the very best efficiency of solar panels, then you need about 85.7 billion square metres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to replace that liquid fuel energy consumption. Each panel is about 1m2. That's a rather large number of panels. We also burn about a cubic mile of coal. We also use hydroelectric power. We also use nuclear. We also use a number of other sources, both "renewable" and not. You can kind of ignore the renewable ones (except for hydro, because it will all end up getting subsumed into pumped hydro for storing other renewables, and so it won't be the standalone renewable that it originally was), so we end up needing a multiple of the ground area number that I just arrived at.
    • Corvette thread then? Don't say I didn't predict the future again. "I love the little MX5, I do, but I just want something a little easier to get in/out of, a little more cushy and some power would be nice - I miss the V8 Rumble... I found this clean red C5 for sale recently and..." I'll do you a great deal on the next step, which is one of those but you can fit people in it, too.
    • What about renewable diesel and/or gasoline? I see some projects spinning up like de-oxygenating ethanol to make drop-in compatible bio-gasoline especially in CA. I still think the future is EVs and we should've all gone full throttle on nuclear power after the 1973 oil crisis like France. Despite 15 years of work in CA to reduce the CO2 intensity of generation with renewables our electric grid is still far worse than even "low carbon" nuclear power. ICE is pretty cool when you aren't depending on the stupid thing to be practical and reliable and cheap as possible to get you to work every day. It's kind of like mechanical watches or vacuum tube amps.
    • I just rolled over "my" first 10k km in the MX5 Every time I go anywhere it always ends up in a adventure to look at houses and find some random country roads I've been on leave since early November but unfortunately need to go back to work on 19 January Luckily though I still have a fair chunk of leave left to burn until.... Not that I'm counting 😁
×
×
  • Create New...