Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Geez where to start.

Been in the process of modding my car and have just got it back all good to go. Just a little bit upset that the car only made 290rwhp on 16psi. Here is the list of mods on the car currently.

Car is a 87 VL Calais with rb25det

Arias Pistons 20 thou over and rods

ACL Main Bearings, head and main studs.

Cometic Head Gasket

Standard Head for now

Greddy Copy Manifold and 80mm throttle body

Sard 550cc injectors

Bosch 044, surge tank and new lift pump

FMIC

Z32 AFM

R34 OP6 Hypergear Standard Hi-flow Turbo

Power FC and AVCR

that is all the engine mods, i have also upgraded the brakes, axles and added an lsd.

Car made 260 on 14psi (low boost) and 290 on 16 psi (high boost). only think i can think to do is set high boost to 18psi and see what figures i pull. do you guys think that figures seems a bit low considering the mods i have.

sorry guys, car is manual, 3inch mandrel bent exhaust from turbo back and just stock vl diff gears. i was thinknig the diff gears might have a bit to do with it as it sits at no more then 2000 rpm when in 5th going 100k.

Diff gears have no effect on power output.

so 290 is about 215rwkw and realistically 240ish should be achievable so what comp pistons, HG thickness and was the pfc tuned via knock monitoring or just the handset??

Well if pistons and head gaskets have dropped the engine compression then you will need more boost to make the same amount of power.

Make sure you have a 3inch metal intake pipe and a free flow exhaust. Try a run with dropped exhaust, high power gain means restrictive exhaust.

Also highly recommend a high pressure actuator if you are running a stock actuator. This turbo is capable of doing around 260rwkws.

hey guys i now have dyno print out up. i drove the car before it was tuned and the turbo kicked in alot harder then.

You will need a high pressure actuator to hold boost up top. Should have no issues getting 260rwkws. are you running stock intake pipe?

the guy that tuned my car took the actuator you supplied off and put a stock one on. he said it was jammed or something cause he didnt know when it was gonna open. im not sure what you mean by stock intake pipe, i have the normal exhaust manifold. here is a pic of my engine bay b4 injectors were fitted.

post-74158-1291211942_thumb.jpg

Edited by chrislesnar

The the whole reason of having an high pressure actuator is to hold boost. Put it back the way it was, and go for another tune. I really don't like people tempering with the actuator as most people lefts them un-adjusted. it opens around 18~20psi without boost controller. It is not Jammed.

Intake pipe is the pipe that connects the turbo to the pod filter, it needs to be an hard pipe at least 3inch in length. If the turbo can not suck in or dispatch air then it will result in lag and lose in power.

I can see a metal intake in there, so that issue is resolved.

Stao, the graph shows he is running roughly 1 bar at a minimum. Do you expect this result from the turbo in question at that boost level?

I think the result is more consistent with a stock op6 @ 14psi than it is a highflow with that sort of power. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, we had a chat today. I did advise before hand that i only wanted 16psi but i thought it would have pulled a bigger figure on that. I mentioned adding a high pressure actuator but he said that the 18psi actuator on it initially was to large and a 12-14psi actuator would be better suited for my build. Atm i happy with how the car is running but just think it could have pulled a larger figure. Will this high pressure actuator increase the hp by that much?

Edited by chrislesnar

You have a built motor, it can take 20psi all day everyday without issue if it was built and tuned properly

even a stock motor will hold together with 18psi with that turbo, was there another reason they said that?

running it at 18-20psi will make a large difference to power.

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

    • 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.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...