Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Nothing wrong with the GTR, it belongs to a member on this forum.

32 GTR had hks hard pipe kit, 100mil jap cooler, dump back HKS system, fuel pump, mines ecu, and from memory 268atw.

My E4 had an axle back exhaust and pushed 188atw with a failing fuel pump. As stated in this state it was 0-100 in under 5s and 0-200 in 13s. The evo would match the GTR at 70kph in 1st gear, then top out 2nd just over 90 when the GTR would catch it as the GTR would hang onto 2nd until close to 120. By that time I was running out of torque in high end 3rd gear and the GTR would walk away from 140+.

GTR stock weight is like 1550? My E4 hit the weighbridge at 1300.

Evo 9s are 1450, having driven one with an Evo green at a failing 240kw, I can say it is significantly faster than the said GTR even in its current spec of over 300atw using HKS 2510s. Owner has driven the E9 and confirmed the same. That E9 also had no spool problems and would easily overpower what I had prior (all with the capability of 300atw on E85 from the green turbo - td06sl2 20g).

To me that is a lot different to the way I read your first statement. This makes a lot more sense.

So you are saying the Evo4 was EVEN with the GTR in 1st gear, then the Evo4 got ahead for a short time when the GTR caught back up and passed it from then on.

Even a small difference in weight can make a big difference in acceleration there is no denying that. I used to have a turbocharged commodore weighing in at only 1300kg and even with a moderate power figure of 225rwkw it was even with many 300rwkw cammed LS1's that would have weighed an extra 200kgs or more.

Nothing wrong with the GTR, it belongs to a member on this forum.

32 GTR had hks hard pipe kit, 100mil jap cooler, dump back HKS system, fuel pump, mines ecu, and from memory 268atw.

My E4 had an axle back exhaust and pushed 188atw with a failing fuel pump. As stated in this state it was 0-100 in under 5s and 0-200 in 13s. The evo would match the GTR at 70kph in 1st gear, then top out 2nd just over 90 when the GTR would catch it as the GTR would hang onto 2nd until close to 120. By that time I was running out of torque in high end 3rd gear and the GTR would walk away from 140+.

GTR stock weight is like 1550? My E4 hit the weighbridge at 1300.

Evo 9s are 1450, having driven one with an Evo green at a failing 240kw, I can say it is significantly faster than the said GTR even in its current spec of over 300atw using HKS 2510s. Owner has driven the E9 and confirmed the same. That E9 also had no spool problems and would easily overpower what I had prior (all with the capability of 300atw on E85 from the green turbo - td06sl2 20g).

Evo X does 0-200km/hr in 23sec, a Evo VI does it in 21sec, but a Evo IV with a cat back can do it in 13sec?!?

LOL

EVOS are not that light either, I know that the Evo 7 and up are more than 1400kg, which is equal to or more than a R33/34 GTS-t or GT-T

My searching says Evo 7 curb weight is 1,320–1,400 kg.

The difference in 0-100 between an Evo and a GTST or GTT would be traction on launch.

The above example is a GTR versus an Evo, there is a decent weight difference between those.

Evo X does 0-200km/hr in 23sec, a Evo VI does it in 21sec, but a Evo IV with a cat back can do it in 13sec?!?

LOL

Everything didn't line up. If his car did that 200 speed, the gtr he spoke of is clearly faster if it walks away after 140km/h. If that is the case that gtr has a 0 to 200 almost as fast as veyron... But yeah back on topic.

Tao has there been any progress on the electric spoiling system? I've been thinking about it and this thing is going to affect the air flow meter setup. Maybe you will need two afm's. Or run a map sensor or create a ugly pipe with a u pipe coming out which holds the fan system in place.

Any one's got a dyno sheet of a evo including torque curve? If there's a turbo that has similar or better downlow torque then a evo then there might be a chance of beating it.

Any way, ATR43G1 is in the test car now. Super responsive. Should give it a new name: DDT. Standing for Dose dynamic turbochargers (that came from Trent :laugh: ). instant boost, makes lots of sucking, splatering and dosing sound, kept the BOV very busy. expecting 230rwkws with stock or better response. will post result soon.

atr43g1front.JPG

Any one's got a dyno sheet of a evo including torque curve? If there's a turbo that has similar or better downlow torque then a evo then there might be a chance of beating it.

Any way, ATR43G1 is in the test car now. Super responsive. Should give it a new name: DDT. Standing for Dose dynamic turbochargers (that came from Trent :laugh: ). instant boost, makes lots of sucking, splatering and dosing sound, kept the BOV very busy. expecting 230rwkws with stock or better response. will post result soon.

video footage or it didn't happen!!!

video footage or is didn't happen!!!

I have a gcg turbo that basically does this, highflowed BB rb20 turbo, it is very believable. 230kw isn't a huge torque increase over the stock turbo, they will make 200rwkw if you really lean on them.

Evo's Australia forums now.

EAU

Evo's are lighter. If we are gonna talk shit on skylines we should be saying silvia's are faster.... Which they are :rofl:

covering my ears now, lalalalalallaalal dont hear anything, mm skyline lalalalla

  • Haha 1

I have a gcg turbo that basically does this, highflowed BB rb20 turbo, it is very believable. 230kw isn't a huge torque increase over the stock turbo, they will make 200rwkw if you really lean on them.

lol, wasn't saying it isn't believable. Just wanta hear it.

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...