Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

yeah but comparing a big single 3076 proper setup to twin GTR is a fairly different comparison

i vote for the 3076 setup on the GTR - 4wd, individual throttle bodies, lots of gearing

i think ANY car stock is fairly ordinary

the only stock car that has suprised me is a friends WRX here (non STI)

i think its maybe a 2004/2005 WRX, and it has tons of torque everywhere and its bone stock

it has more pull in every gear over my GTST with usual mods

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

yeah but comparing a big single 3076 proper setup to twin GTR is a fairly different comparison

i vote for the 3076 setup on the GTR - 4wd, individual throttle bodies, lots of gearing

Of course - but that's gonna cost you $30k more... :(

the only stock car that has suprised me is a friends WRX here (non STI)

i think its maybe a 2004/2005 WRX, and it has tons of torque everywhere and its bone stock

it has more pull in every gear over my GTST with usual mods

More pull than your car with 194rwkw? Really?

I've driven an (05 i think?) WRX with a big cooler, exhaust, intake etc (standard boost) and i didn't think it was any quicker than my 34 when it had 185rwkw...

It did have a more 'torquey' feel though, less revvy...

I have always liked WRXs - they sound awesome and handle a shitload better than skylines - but they are everywhere and I think the 34 just has 'something' that the WRX doesn't somehow...

yep my GTST which ive had for 7 years has exhaust, intercooler, aggressive tune, heavy duty clutch, pump, splitfires, good tyres, suspension work, camber, castor, all the other bits and 192rwkw

the wrx is non-sti bog stock and its got 62,000 on the clock, my gtst has 230,000 on it

even when i had my gtst with 100,000 i still think the WRX has a bit more pull

i dont know how it would go on the street against each other, but i can feel the wrx pull more

and this is on light cruise, full gear runs, up hils and bogging it down

ie 50km in 4th gear lots of lag and floor it in both cars

60km in 5th gear lots of lag and floor it

the wrx seems to pull more consisntently all the way through

its probably a bit unfair as the skyline has a lot of km's on it

but the skyline also has 10k worth of parts on it

yeah i should add the wrx feels like it will drop off quickly and the tacho redline starts at 6500rpm

the skyline seems to pull alll the way and not die off, but wrx pulls more

i dont know if its the 2L or 2.5L wrx, ill check

Fair enough. Must say the RB25 NEO I have is around 30rwkw and 50+nm better through the whole range until 5k than a non NEO with the exact same mods / tune (compared at Morpowa) so might have something to do with it... Newer engine in the Rexxy = better technology / flow than an R33.

Still surprising in a car that weighs the same and would struggle for 130-140rwkw (stock) vs 190+... Anyone got thoughts on this?

yeah not sure what it weighs or what power it has

and not sure if its the 2l or 2.5l, but either way it is 4 cylinder

so

wrx 2l = 500c per cyclinder

wrx 2.5l = 625 cc per cylinder

r33 2.5l = 415cc per cylinder

that might be why

yeah not sure what it weighs or what power it has

and not sure if its the 2l or 2.5l, but either way it is 4 cylinder

so

wrx 2l = 500c per cyclinder

wrx 2.5l = 625 cc per cylinder

r33 2.5l = 415cc per cylinder

that might be why

Surely more displacement per cylinder does not equal more torque...? It's a whole system as our 6 cylinders = 1 crank rotation in the same time as the 4 WRX cylinders do...?

dont know if its the be all and end-all but think of the EVO and the SR20

both are 2 litre 4 cylinders and pull some pretty good numbers and have good cc per cylinder vs other in line 6's

check out the barra XR6t

and we all know those things pull some spastic numbers

4l = 666cc per cylinder

if we follow the CC per cylinder rule for most torque

the lowest is the R32 GTST and the highest is the LS1/LS2's

and the 200sx, WRX, EVO and XR6 are in the mid to high end

the R32 GTST, R33 GTST, GTR are in the lower end

give us some more engine specs / mods and ill chart them all up

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...