Jump to content
SAU Community

Power Fc Vs Nistune

Mick_o

By Mick_o,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DVS JEZ
DVS JEZ

Cough cough

GTSBoy
GTSBoy

Nistune can be set up to idle really well with most changes, but as with all such things, spastically large injectors or massive AFM capacity mean that you're working at the very bottom end of the sca

GTSBoy
GTSBoy

Well, sort of. It is actually pretty easy to determine the relationship, for A GIVEN ENGINE, between MAP and air flow (with IAT correction). And it's not going to be much less accurate to calculate

Posted Images

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted

We can produce both powers at the same rev by adjusting the throttle plate.

Timing would be correct for the application at both loads.

If the AFR is the same fuel usage will be double.

However, I do believe I was caught up in the moment and using the word "exactly" may not bet totally correct.

There are many factors that come in to play like the difference in barometric pressure, air and fuel temp from the 2 events being 100hp and 200hp.

If measurable there would have to be some sort of variation.

The real concern is why your turbo is kicking out? I would be upset if my 3037 was doing that

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

D_Stirls Veteran

D_Stirls

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

Torque changes through the rev range due to changing Volumetric Efficiency.

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

i dont get whats so "lol", you do realise that its a street turbo usually you dont go over 5000rpm, i can deal with the 500rpm unlike having a lot of lag.

A street turbo that comes on @ 4500rpm - when you don't go over 5000rpm?

500rpm band... awesome.

Birds Grand Master

Birds

Posted
Posted

Let's not forget more RPM when connected to a gear = more vehicle speed = more resistance = greater load on the engine to maintain that speed...will change with inclines and declines of road surface too. Way too many variables!

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

i dont get whats so "lol", you do realise that its a street turbo usually you dont go over 5000rpm, i can deal with the 500rpm unlike having a lot of lag.

Lol. On drugs much? Who says you don't usually go over 5k in a street turbo car. Especially wierd when we're talking about RB engines where you can scream to well over 5k in less than a second in 1st and 2nd....and usually do so.

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

I do believe i said the same revs for different power.

You should actually read my post before replying.

B-rice Mentor

B-rice

Posted
Posted

Lol. On drugs much? Who says you don't usually go over 5k in a street turbo car. Especially wierd when we're talking about RB engines where you can scream to well over 5k in less than a second in 1st and 2nd....and usually do so.

im running a GTX3076r soon so i dont really care i never take it on track so below 5000rpm is good enough beside if i tune that badboy properly i can achieve about 480hp which is very decent for a street car. Another mans eat is another mans poison.

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

What uses completely more fuel.

An Ls1 5.7 NA at 12.5:1 making 370rwhp

Or a CA18 turbo at 12.5:1 making 370rwhp?

Now we are talking massive measurable differences here so the answer should be very clear.

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have no idea, would come down to many factors... valve train friction, the v8 has more valves, pushrods, but each piston is lighter, the turbo car has higher VE but less cylinders.... Id flip a coin imo.

Probably go the LS1 because of more conservative cam profiles/emissions laws when the motor came out.

Edited by Rolls
HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

but the LS1 has more volume, and needs less load per liter to create the the same power.

In a perfect world would have a smaller throttle opening but generate the same power.

So you can tell me, on the same engine creating 2 different power out puts that fuel requirements per horsepower are COMPLETELY different

But you cant tell me that with 2 completely different engines, creating the same horsepower your not to sure what one would use more fuel?

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted
So you can tell me, on the same engine creating 2 different power out puts that fuel requirements per horsepower are COMPLETELY different

But you cant tell me that with 2 completely different engines, creating the same horsepower your not to sure what one would use more fuel?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question? How on earth am I meant to know the different efficiencies of the two engines? It involves hundreds of things! All I said is it would be different...

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

Its not a serious question, Its a trick question. Its also a demonstration to show that statements like the above shouldn't be posted unless you know exactly what you are talking about.

Both engines use the similar fuel. most would say the same fuel. both do it in COMPLETELY different ways.....

But both use very similar fuel quantities.

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
      Stock rb25det neo questions

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      They are what I will be installing. 640s for me.
    • GTSBoy
      Stock rb25det neo questions

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Hmm... From my experience you get about 0.25° camber change per mm of RUCA length change. So, to correct from -2.5 up to less than -1° (or, more than -1° if you look at the world as a mathematician does) then you'd be making 6-8mm of length change on the RUCA. From a stock length of 308mm, that's 2-2.5% difference in RUCA length. My RUCAs are currently very close to stock length - certainly only 2-3mm different from stock. I had to adjust my tension arms by 6mm to minimise the bump steer. That's 6mm out of 210, which is 2.8%. That's a 2.8% change on those, compared to a <1% change on the RUCAs. So the stock geometry already has worse bump steer than is possible - you can improve it even if you don't change the RUCA length. If you lengthen the RUCAs at all, then you will definitely be adding bump steer. Again, with my car, I recently had an unpleasant amount of bump steer, stemming from a number of things that happened one after another without me having an opportunity to correct for them. I only had to change the tension arm lengths by 1mm to minimise the resulting bump steer. (Granted, I also had to dial out a lot of extra toe-in in the rear, and excessive rear toe-in will make bump steer behaviour worse). Relatively tiny little adjustments having been made - the car is now completely different. Was horrifying how much it wanted to steer from the rear on any significant single wheel bump/dip. And it was even bad on expansion joints on long sweepers on freeway entry/exits, which are notionally hitting both rear wheels at the same time. My point is, the crappy Nissan multilink is quite sensitive to these things (unlike the very nice Toyota suspension!). And I think 99.75% of Skyline owners are blissfully ignorant of what they are driving around on. Sadly, it is a non-trivial exercise to set up to measure and correct bump steer. I am happy to show my rig, which involves nasty chunks of wood bolted to the hub, mirrors, lasers, graph paper targets and other horrors. Just in case anyone wants to see how it is done. I'll just have to set it up to take the photos.
    • Wazmond
      Stock rb25det neo questions

      By Wazmond · Posted

      What do you have in that bad boy ? Ill go with the 725cc since I'll be going with Nistune ( would definitely like more engine protection but Haltech is too far out of reach at the moment... plus, Ill probably have a pretty safe tune as its a daily, not gonna be chasing peak power 24/7 ahahah ). Are Xspurt a safe choice?  Pete's great. He didnt mention anything about traction arm length so I reckon it may be good. When I get some new wheels/tire later down the road I'll ask him about it and get his opinion on em. I heard from Gary that you've got the bilsteins too, are you running the sway bars too? and what other suspension goodies do you have installed or would recommend?
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      NC MX5

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      In true Gregging style...  
    • Duncan
      R32 gtr hood latch support/lock part number search

      By Duncan · Posted

      Time for bonnet pins!
×
×
  • Create New...