Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I don't think there will be much in the way of results... the only way to do it properly would be to have O2 sensors in each exhaust runner and test back to back to the stock RB26 plenum. The aim of the plenum is to achieve equal flow distribution, there will be a small power gain because of the increased volume.

  • 9 months later...

Hi guys,

Just digging up this thread for the benefit of anyone who is considering using one of these.

I aquired one from a mate who is parting out his race motor - never intended to buy one due to the price but I got a sweet deal.

I was expecting more low end torque and a significant power increase.

Very hard to compare todays dyno result to last time as the air temp between winter and summer is so different along with air density.

Anyway; basic motor spec:

RB26 bored 0.5mm

Ported cylinder head

Tomei 270/260 Pro cams (I think)

HKS GT2530 Kai's

Factory cast iron manifolds.

1.7 bar boost.

No other changes other than the Nismo plenum and the weather conditions.

Previously made 620nms at 5,100rpm and 467kws @ wheels at 7,200rpm (DIN).

Today made 610nms @ 5,100rpm and 473kws @ wheels at 7,800rpm (DIN).

Power used to drop off sharply after 7,200rpm but now its flat all the way to 8,000rpm.

Boost curve is around 100rpm slower to build but still peaks at approx 5,000rpm. It has less "spool" from 3,000 to 4,000rpm but climbs much more steeply from there. Boost curve is more stable than before as it used to dip down slightly between 5,500rpm and 6,000rpm. Now it sits flat to redline.

We tried more boost but the EBC couldnt control the boost steadily over 1.7 bar so we stayed at this level.

My conclusion is that its a worthwhile mod but perhaps not so useful on this particular spec engine.

Pro's: wider power band, more stable boost, more even cylinder temps at #6.

Con's: price unless you get a good deal.

Just bare in mind the plenum may work better or worse depending on your engine spec. Happy with the stronger top end but somewhat dissapointed I didnt get the torque increase - maybe just the weather??

Cheers

Andy

Thanks for the results Andy - fits perfectly with the 2% quoted by Nismo, given its pretty much what the results show there :thumbsup:

Boost stability should'nt change with a properly sealed plenum.working EBC be it Nismo/Greddy or stock - so it sounds like the EBC (or whatever method), something has changed there. Perhaps a slight leak with the old plenum.

It's funny that in RH9's case the peak torque was slightly less at the same RPM when the runners are longer and 2 mm smaller.

I know years ago, Yavuz spun mine to 9000 RPM and power held flat. It didn't really "nose over" as such. Hmm..

Very very solid power for the old RB26 on low mounts, gotta be happy with that.

Thanks for the results Andy - fits perfectly with the 2% quoted by Nismo, given its pretty much what the results show there :thumbsup:

Boost stability should'nt change with a properly sealed plenum.working EBC be it Nismo/Greddy or stock - so it sounds like the EBC (or whatever method), something has changed there. Perhaps a slight leak with the old plenum.

It's funny that in RH9's case the peak torque was slightly less at the same RPM when the runners are longer and 2 mm smaller.
I know years ago, Yavuz spun mine to 9000 RPM and power held flat. It didn't really "nose over" as such. Hmm..

Yep - and with this whole 2% difference thing the results are so close that there any range of minor variables could result in those changes, as said... a tiny boost leak, some other random thing that may have changed, even the way the tuner set up the boost control or conditions on the day. You can see that difference between a cold and hot run even, so it is a bit hard to jump to any major conclusions on - as Andy indicated.

Was it previously running a factory plenum?

It is easy to write off the results as insignificant... the increase in power and extended power band until later in rev range is more than likely due to increase plenum volume compared to anything else. You would see this with any larger plenum.

There is no mention of actual cylinder temps, if someone was serious they would have an O2 sensor in each runner, that would tell a story. Until then people can continue to scoff at the results so far which dont really say anything.

Can't really scoff at the dyno results - or otherwise, its so close.

If there is definitely a noticeable improvement in temperature across the 6 cylinders then it HAS to be a good thing. I'm a firm believer in making the engine happy first, and power gains being a result of that is a nice bonus - but the same power with a less stressed motor is brilliant.

2530s @ 24psi falling over @ 7200rpm on a 2.6ltr...
Boost control wasn't consistent from 5-6k...
Obvious something, albeit minor, was up beforehand.


(and again, not discounting the #6 reaffirmed etc, its all good and useful information).

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

    • Lucky man, who owns it in the family? Any pics? 
    • The engine stuff is Greg Autism to the Max. I contacted Tony Mamo previously from AFR who went off to make his own company to further refine AFR heads. He is a wizard in US LS world. Pretty much the best person on earth who will sell you things he's done weird wizard magic to. The cam spec is not too different. I have a 232/234 .600/603 lift, 114LSA cam currently. The new one is 227/233 .638 .634. The 1.8 ratio roller rockers will effectively push this cam into the ~.670 range. These also get Mamo'ified to be drilled out and tapped to use a 10mm bolt over an 8mm for better stability. This is what lead to the cam being specced. The plan is to run it to 6800. (6600 currently). The Johnson lifters are to maintain proper lift at heavy use which is something the LS7's supposedly fail at and lose a bit of pressure, robbing you of lift at higher RPM. Hollow stem valves for better, well everything, Valve train control. I dunno. Hollow is better. The valves are also not on a standard valve angle. Compression ratio is going from 10.6 to 11.3. The cam is smaller, but also not really... The cam was specced when I generated a chart where I counted the frames of a lap video I had and noted how much of the time in % I spent at what RPM while on track at Sandown. The current cam/heads are a bit mismatched, the standard LS1 heads are the restriction to power, which is why everyone CNC's them to get a pretty solid improvement. Most of the difference between LS1->LS2->LS3 is really just better stock heads. The current cam is falling over about 600rpm earlier than it 'should' given the rest of my current setup. CNC'ing heads closes the gap with regards to heads. Aftermarket heads eliminate the gap and go further. The MMS heads go even further than that, and the heads I have in the box could quite easily be bolted to a 7.0 427ci or 454 and not be any restriction at all. Tony Mamo previously worked with AFR, designed new heads from scratch then eventually founded his own business. There he takes the AFR items and performs further wizardry, CNC'ing them and then manually porting the result. He also ports the FAST102 composite manifold: Before and after There's also an improved racing crank scraper and windage tray. Helps to keep oil in the pan. Supposedly gains 2% power. Tony also ports Melling oil pumps, so you get more oil pressure down low at idle, and the same as what you want up top thanks to a suitable relief spring. There's also the timing chain kit with a Torrington bearing to make sure the cam doesn't have any thrust. Yes I'll post a before and after when it all eventually goes together. It'll probably make 2kw more than a setup that would be $15,000 cheaper :p
    • Because the cars wheels are on blocks, you slide under the car.   Pretty much all the bolts you touched should have been put in, but not fully torque up.   Back them off a turn or two, and then tighten them up from under the car with the wheels sitting on the blocks holding car up in the air.
    • Yes. Imagine you have the car on the ground, and you mine away all the ground under and around it, except for the area directly under each individual wheel. That's exactly how it'd look, except the ground will be what ever you make the bit under each wheel from
    • Yes, if you set the "height" right so that it's basically where it would be when sitting on the wheel. It's actually exactly how I tighten bolts that need to be done that way. However....urethane bushes do NOT need to be done that way. The bush slides on both the inner and outer. It's only rubber bushes that are bonded to the outer that need to be clamped to the crush tube in the "home" position. And my car is so full of sphericals now that I have very few that I need to do properly and I sometimes forget and have to go back and fix it afterwards!
×
×
  • Create New...