Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lee (RB25DETS2) had the same problem with his hks actuator, we tried everything, more gain, more pre-load, just spiked more and more so we ditched it for a 18 psi and it holds perfect now.

  • Replies 489
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top stuff!

Glad to see more people on E85! Best decision i ever made switching over.

But i have to agree the fuel economy is terrible, at WOP i swear i can see the fuel needle move lol

Totally damn frustrating. Car is ready to go back on the rollers but this fuel still isnt available to us up here and i cant get an answer as to when it will be.

This is Ipswich for gawd sake. Home of willowbank and qld raceway and more tuff streeters than you can poke a stick at.

The market is right here right now.

yeah this e85 is GOOOD stuff...

and the best part is that i have the power of a 3037 with the response of a 2835.... cake and eat it and so on

Sometimes i wish i'd bought the 3037 instead of the GT-RS.

But then i go for a quick spin and forget about it pretty quickly. :wacko:

You sure?

I've never heard of anyone making 280rwkw with a GT-RS on a 25...I thought it was past its capability, but hey, I'd love to be wrong :P

Blitz SBC Spec-R, 18psi but tailing off to about 16 (trying to find the problem)

Don't say that just yet, im gonna damn bloody try once this head gets here :wacko:

And he was/is the only one... i don't believe it was right personally as no-one has come close since

Yeah i swear he must have had a hidden shot of gas somewhere :)

Still, im keen to push mine as far as it can go. Should have every single thing done to it to help it make peak power other than a rebuild. Warlord's was probably the most a GT-RS has been pushed.

Just got word that theres a hipo workshop in brisbane selling it in 205 litre drums.

Only wants 460 dollars a drum.

lol

what a f*kstain! Who is it?

Noel can you use your persuasion powers, maybe talk to Neuman Petroleum at the next time attack?

Joe added a link to your thread in my Facebook group :)

Edited by dano4127
Sometimes i wish i'd bought the 3037 instead of the GT-RS.

But then i go for a quick spin and forget about it pretty quickly. :(

Well I had for ages favoured the idea of going GT-RS but eventually went the GT3076R, interesting difference here is I have never looked back :)

what a f*kstain! Who is it?

Noel can you use your persuasion powers, maybe talk to Neuman Petroleum at the next time attack?

Joe added a link to your thread in my Facebook group :)

Trust me I am trying Dano. I want this stuff bad.

Hmm I have had it for >2 years but if I remember rightly around NZ$2k at the time I purchased it. Runs an internal wastegate and is on stock manifold so all RELATIVELY straight forward/cheap to set up.

good result, but I would love to see a graph of what difference it made at the same boost. I know you're saying you couldn't run more boost with the 98RON, but it was only running 14psi at the top end with a spike to 21psi as it ramped onto boost. I would just want to see what gain the fuel itself made. same boost, but with more timing etc it can apparently take. as it is a lot of that gain would be from more boost (more air + more fuel = more power of course), and i'm a bit surprised that the most you could run was 14psi on 98RON.

anyway, enjoy the new power and sweet smelling, cheap fuel. :)

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...