Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok well i finished installing my turbo the other night and got it on the dyno... here are the results.

The turbo is a HKS 2530, i was running 10psi boost for this run.

It seems i need a fuel cut defender, and really need to upgrade fuel pump and reg from the standard crap ones i got.

what will be the max power std injectors can push?

what do you think my car will make once ive changed pump and reg? (i am running a std computer with injectors, but havee installed an SAFCII) i dont want to fork out for a complete computer.

I know this turbo's efficiency range is something like 1.2bar - 1.5 or something. i would like to run around 1.1-1.2bar if possible with new pump and reg.

any suggestons, ideas or info to improve its current state would be great.

heres the print out.2530dyno2.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/22721-dyno-results-with-hks2530/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why did you stop the power-run before 6000rpm? Due to the AFR being way too lean? Why didn't you use the SAFC to richen it up?

My car with stock turbo and injectors made 296rwhp, so I'm sure you can push your injectors to a bit over 300rwhp. A bigger fuel pump and fuel reg will allow about 340rwhp no probs.

Paul, yours does have 500 extra cc's to get there remember :(

bbenny: if youve got an SAFC then you should be able to tune that AFR graph to look a bit better, at the moment it looks like its leaning out toward dangerous at about 6krpm. However the RB20 ecu is very easily reprogrammed, and since your already paying for the dyno time, getting a remap by someone cluey shouldnt cost you too much.

Personally, if you dont plan on making too many changes to maps (like me:D), id sell the SAFC and let the ecu manage everything (probably cheaper and you get to change timing AND fuel maps).

Red17

Sorry, didn't read it was a R32.

I agree with Red17, Those AFR's are very bad, way too lean. I'm sure it will make decent power once the SAFC is tuned, or you have a remapped chip.

The way the dyno graph was pointing I'd guess you'd get 300rwhp easily at 1bar:D

i didnt stop it, it cuts out because its running too lean... i think it needs a fuel cut defender or something.

yeah i was hoping to make 300rwhp on stock injectors.

yeah i was contemplating whether to ditch the SAFC and chip it...

no the engine completely cuts out... so when im driving on the road i have the foot planted and then at around 5500rpm it just cuts out as if i took my foot completely off. its very sudden. its pulling hard then all of a sudden NOTHING.

Holy crap man....look at those AFR's after 4000rpm. Definately get the fuel pump first...and then see how much improvement you get. Standard injectors should be ok for around 210rwkw or so. If i were you i wouldn't be driving over 4000rpm....that's asking for trouble.

Scott

I put money on it been the fuel pump . Mine was the same.

Come into my work and grab a bosche 040 600hp internal.

Sounds like its hitting AFM cut as well which Glen at c-red can get rid of or lucas at speedworks. Don't put a shitty fuel cut defender on it when u can just program it out of the computer.

haha dont worry im not driving it above 4000rpm and ive dropped the boost to std! thanks for the concern guys.

yeah i think i will get the computer tuned.

Chris, im very happy with it so far... once i get the other problems sorted i think it will be shredding all those idiots in WRX's and commodores (even tho it already did, now just rubs it in a little more) hehe

Its the fuel pump!

I had similar 13.5 AFR under load when the fuel pump was dying...

I could see, with a gauge on fuel feed line, the rail pressure was dropping dramatically after 4500.

Upgrade the pump, its easy to do yourself on r32.

fuel pump upgrade link

(You make more power when its running lean like that...well until

it goes BANG anyway ;p)

I like the look of that graph though at only 10psi!

oh yeah, and toshi will sell you a remapped chip with fuel cut removed and mapped (timing and fuel) for bigger turbo

its not perfect though (only $160), as its not dynoed to your particular car but better than stock chip, you could still use the safc to fine tune it further (since you already got it)

or sell safc and get a proper chip remap on a dyno

Redline gtr: im not sure who will tune it at this stage. ive ben getting it the dyno runs at Procar - they are reasonable at $45 for a power run... and about $65 an hr to have A/F tuned...

gts-v-spec: yeah i was considering the drive there :)

yeah well ive already ordered pump and regulator so ill throw it in on monday night and get her back on the dyno and see what happens. if it still cuts out then im going to sell the SAFCII and chip it instead (bugger because i only put the SAFC in 2 days ago! gggrrrr) anyone interested in it? only about 2hrs use ;)

thanks for the instalation info Nissky

Oh and does anyone know a good place in Sydney to have the ECU tuned?

just get a Big fuel pump... dont worry about the Reg just yet.

Just get bigger injectors to go with the pump. And leave it to the stock reg.

Dont get a bigger reg to squeeze the most outta the stock injectors. You wont get much more so its not worth the time.

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. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
    • This has clearly gone off on quite a tangent but the suggestion was "go standalone because you probably aren't going to stop at just exhaust + a mild tune and manual boost controller", not "buy a standalone purely for a boost controller". If the scope does in fact stop creeping at an EBC then sure, buy an EVC7 or Profec or whatever else people like to run and stop there. And I have yet to see any kind of aftermarket boost control that is more complicated than a PID controller with some accounting for edge cases. Control system theory is an incredibly vast field yet somehow we always end up back at some variant of a PID controller, maybe with some work done to linearize things. I have done quite a lot, but I don't care to indulge in those pissing matches, hence posting primary sources. I deal with people quite frequently that scream and shout about how their opinion matters more because they've shipped more x or y, it doesn't change the reality of the data they're trying to disagree with. Arguing that the source material is wrong is an entirely separate point and while my experience obviously doesn't matter here I've rarely seen factory service manuals be incorrect about something. It's not some random poorly documented internal software tool that is constantly being patched to barely work. It's also not that hard to just read the Japanese and double check translations either. Especially in automotive parts most of it is loanwords anyways.
    • If you are keeping the current calipers you need to keep the current disc as the spacing of the caliper determines the disc diameter. Have you trial fitted the GTS brakes fit on a GTSt hub or is this forward planning? There could be differences in caliper mount spacing, backing plate and even hub shape that could cause an issue.
    • Hi there I have a r33 gts with 4 stud small brakes, I'm going to convert to 5 stud but keep the small brakes, what size rotor would I need?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...