Jump to content
SAU Community

How Much Power Can The Stock Clutch Handle? R33 Series 2

Jason Zhu
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jason Zhu Contributor

Jason Zhu

Posted
Posted

hi guys, i was just wondering how much power the stock clutch handle. my car is R33 Series II GTST (190kw running at 11psi)

coz i alway feel the gear shift is not soft and a little bit sudden. i can alway feel a forward push when i change the gear.

is it because of the power? or some problem with the gearbox or clutch?

Bayside Blue R34 GTV Collaborator

Bayside Blue R34 GTV

Posted
Posted

your stock clutch should handle 190rwkw fine.

As to the sudden engagement,from my experience, its more to how fast you shift and how you use the clutch. If you want softer engagement, try to engage the clutch just as the rev drops enough for the rev needed for the next gear (its all about timing,took me a while to get the hang of it), or you can ride the clutch a bit for softer engagement.

But if your racing, doing fast shifting, dont expect any smooth engagement without burning the clutch:)

  • 2 weeks later...
89CAL Grand Master

89CAL

Posted
Posted

my stock clutch struggled to handle around 150rwkw. There not the best OEM clutch

are you sure its a stock clutch? sounds like it could be aftermarket as the stock clutch is pretty smooth and you should be able to get it to change smoothly if it was the stock clutch

Jason Zhu Contributor

Jason Zhu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

yes, im pretty sure it's a stock clutch.

my stock clutch struggled to handle around 150rwkw. There not the best OEM clutch

are you sure its a stock clutch? sounds like it could be aftermarket as the stock clutch is pretty smooth and you should be able to get it to change smoothly if it was the stock clutch

mad082 Grand Master

mad082

Posted
Posted

my stock clutch struggled to handle around 150rwkw. There not the best OEM clutch

are you sure its a stock clutch? sounds like it could be aftermarket as the stock clutch is pretty smooth and you should be able to get it to change smoothly if it was the stock clutch

that's pretty much stock power for a 33. your clutch failed cause it was fucked and worn out, not because you were making too much power.

my stock clutch gave up at 214rwkw, revs would just flare under hard acceleration, selecting and changing gears wasnt a problem though

exactly. when you are making too much power for a clutch you will floor it and the revs will rise but speed won't (as if you are riding the clutch).

sounds like the OP just isn't that smooth at changing gears, or at least with how quick he releases the clutch.

  • 2 weeks later...
mad082 Grand Master

mad082

Posted
Posted

i think a lot of it comes down to the condition of the flywheel as well. a car that has had a slipping clutch for a while probably also has a rooted flywheel, and if you put a new clutch in it and don't replace the flywheel then there will be a limit to how much power it will handle before it slips.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      R32 GTR EV? The leaf of the Godzilla's!

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • MBS206
      R32 GTR EV? The leaf of the Godzilla's!

      By MBS206 · Posted

      @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • TurboTapin
      R32 GTR EV? The leaf of the Godzilla's!

      By TurboTapin · Posted

      As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      R32 GTR EV? The leaf of the Godzilla's!

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • GTSBoy
      R32 GTR EV? The leaf of the Godzilla's!

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...