Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So the short answer is that MAF provides you with a more stable tune. Less variation due to subtle changes in air temp and atmospheric pressures. I'm probably switching back to a 4" MAF and a ford lightning sensor with my next setup for that exact reason.

That is unless your going to be doing something radical that uses MAF and MAP...

Tuning with MAF gives the car a more accurate tune and response is a lot better.

Yes I will be running MAF and MAP and the MAF will help make table for MAP . Using a Motec you can almost do anything .

Don't go to big of a MAF as idle will be an issue .

On a another note we tuned a 6466 turbo it made 600kws on 35psi very impressed with that turbo

Was that 6466 result on a 2.6 Bobby? My goal is to make 500kw atw with the new setup, but I'd like to do it easy, perhaps around 22-25psi should be possible with my displacement and head setup.

What size and configuration turbine did you use too?

Edited by GTRNUR

Was that 6466 result on a 2.6 Bobby? My goal is to make 500kw atw with the new setup, but I'd like to do it easy, perhaps around 22-25psi should be possible with my displacement and head setup.

What size and configuration turbine did you use too?

It was on a 2.6l .

The turbo was a customers choice exducer was only 86mm .

You will need some boost to make it all happen .

Hey Bobby love the build! Enjoyed following it all this time.

Any reason you didnt use vcam? Wouldnt it help more in achieving your goal?

Yes a v cam would help the response however at the time of the build 6 years ago it was not considered . However the design is setup on a way that it will respond like v cam .

Tuning with MAF gives the car a more accurate tune and response is a lot better.

Yes I will be running MAF and MAP and the MAF will help make table for MAP . Using a Motec you can almost do anything .

Don't go to big of a MAF as idle will be an issue .

On a another note we tuned a 6466 turbo it made 600kws on 35psi very impressed with that turbo

Anymore info on the 2.6 with the 6466? Comp ratio? Headwork?

  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

500kws power does not state how fast a car is . As these powers are peak out put . More important is how quick it gets there

Are you still using a 72mm Turbonetics turbo to do it? I agree with "500kw doesn't state how fast a car is" sentiment, but the brand "Turbonetics" and 72mm each spell "lag" to me - ie, not exactly the quickest 500kw you could get :unsure:

Otherwise, amazing build!! Look forward to seeing how this comes out

  • Like 1

Are you still using a 72mm Turbonetics turbo to do it? I agree with "500kw doesn't state how fast a car is" sentiment, but the brand "Turbonetics" and 72mm each spell "lag" to me - ie, not exactly the quickest 500kw you could get :unsure:

Otherwise, amazing build!! Look forward to seeing how this comes out

"T70 not T72 entry hole 68mm of the turbo". NO LAG well not as much as any other car that has a turbo this size. It seems you know the formula for a quick 500kw??? please tell me.

Thank you

"T70 not T72 entry hole 68mm of the turbo". NO LAG well not as much as any other car that has a turbo this size. It seems you know the formula for a quick 500kw??? please tell me.

I'll re-iterate, I am blown away with the whole build - I didn't mean to offend, and certainly don't mean to say I could do it better... at least when it comes to the engine build, fabrication etc. I've never built an RB to make that power (on that note are you going to be running E85?) so far bit it from me to question anything there. The only thing which did make me raise an eyebrow was the T70 based turbo, and hence me asking as I figured you'd either say "wink wink nudge nudge" implying that its hardly an off the shelf T70 if not say what has been done there... because otherwise it is just using an old Turbonetics turbo on what is otherwise an amazing build, and when the turbo has in ways the biggest influence on how the engine is going to be able to perform given most of the good stuff will be relying on the turbocharger to provide extra air mass in a timely fashion.
The reason I say that is I've experienced first hand an RB30 Skyline running a Turbonetics T70 and the thing was horrible in spool and response considering it had a 3litre engine, by comparison I've also experienced a GTR with a T04Z on an RB30DET making similar power to the T70 car and due to expectations of what a 3litre 450+awkw GTR being set by the Turbonetics one I nearly shat myself when the T04Z tried to rip tarmac up at rpm where the T70 one felt like it had just realised it had a turbo and was sheepishly asking it whether it could give it some decent boost at some point, please. The ride in the T70 Skyline was my first experience of an RB30 and I actually didn't think too much of their advantage over a 2.6 for some time because of the experience, so discovering that it was actually nothing to do with the engine so much as the air pump hobbling it... and that is one of the reasons I decided I *really* get my teeth into trying to understand dynamics between engines and the things attached to them as while that was an extreme case, it does show that the turbo can make an otherwise crap setup awesome and an awesome setup crap.
So if you're going to take that line, a formula for a quicker 500kw car is do exactly what you are doing - but put a better turbo on it, because unless there is some very sneaky stuff you have done to the Turbonetics turbo which essentially would mean calling it a Turbonetics T70 would be very misleading and I'd really have no idea of it's potential... then I would be completely surprised to see a result which no other turbo could match on your setup. I like surprises, as it means there is more for me to learn and more ways to go fast - and I love seeing good results, which is the only reason I questioned it.
Looking forward to seeing how it goes, anyway :)

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

    • Ah right. Maybe my rb just loves chewing through batteries lol.
    • On the R34 can't you just unplug the IACV? This is the way I've always done it on the R33. Disconnect IACV, get it idling around 650rpm, and then do a power reset on the ECU to get it to relearn idle (factory ECU).   The big reason no one has touched on as to why you'd want to get the base idle right, is that it means the computer needs to make smaller adjustments to get a good idle at 700-750rpm.   Also, cleaning the IACV won't normally make the car suddenly idle lower or higher. The main issue with the IACV gumming up is that the valve sticks. This means the inputs the ECU gives, aren't translating to changes in air flow. This can cause idle choppy ness as the ECU is now needing to give a lot of input to get movement, but then it moves too far, and then has to do the same in reverse, and it can mean the ECU can't catch stalls quickly either.
    • 12.8 for a great condition, fully charged battery. If the battery will only ever properly charge to about 12.2V, the battery is well worn, and will be dead soon. When I say properly charge, I mean disconnect it from the car, charge it to its max, and then put your multimeter on it, and see what it reads about an hour later. Dieing batteries will hold a higher "surface charge", but the minutest load, even from just a multimeter (which in the scheme of things is considered totally irrelevant, especially at this level) will be enough over an hour to make the surface charge disappear.   I spend wayyy too much time analysing battery voltages for customers when they whinge that our equipment (telematics device) is causing their battery to drain all the time. Nearly every case I can call it within about 2 months of when the battery will be completely dead. Our bigger customers don't even debate it with me any more ha ha ha. A battery at 12.4 to 12.6 I'd still be happy enough with. However, there's a lot of things that can cause a parasitic draw in a car, first of which is alarms and immobilisers. To start checking, put your multimeter into amps, (and then connect it properly) and measure your power draw with everything off. Typical car battery is about 40aH. Realistically, you'll get about half this before the car won't start. So a 100mA power drain will see you pretty much near unstartable in 8 days.
    • Car should sit at 12.2 or more, maybe 12.6 or 12.7 when fully charged and happy. If there is a decent enough parasitic load then it will certainly go lower than 12.2 with time. You can't beat physics.
    • Ok guess I can rule out the battery, probably even the starter and alternator (maybe) as well. I'm gonna clean those leads and see what happens if it's still shit I might take it to an auto electrician. Unless the immobiliser is that f**king heavy, but it shouldn't be.  If I start the car every day, starts up perfectly never an issue. Isn't 12v low, shouldn't it be around 12.5v?
×
×
  • Create New...