Educated Guess At The Final Tune Results

[fatz]

yea i have the same turbo and it makes 400 at 21psi on a stock motor

so should smash 450 out at the same boost

[XGTRX]

Agreed, if it was a 2.6 but its a 3.2. 0.6 litres per engine cycle increase is enough for it to outflow a small turbo rear which is OK on a responsive 2.6 setup. That's why he saw none of these issues on his 2.6.

Edited July 8, 2015 by XGTRX

[Nismo 3.2ish]

yea i have the same turbo and it makes 400 at 21psi on a stock motor

so should smash 450 out at the same boost

So many different opinions

When are you on full boost ?

I understand cars are built for different reasons and blokes want the power where it works best for them, I just want it low and going hard ASAP and do not give a rats if it is less power than what I have now

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Agreed, if it was a 2.6 but its a 3.2. 0.6 litres per engine cycle increase is enough for it to outflow a small turbo rear which is OK on a responsive 2.6 setup. That's why he saw none of these issues on his 2.6.

The good thing about this is, if I have to , I can change whatever I need to achieve the results I want or as close as I can get. Just about happy now so it wont take too much more

Edited July 8, 2015 by Nismo 3.2ish

[fatz]

4200-4300 for full boost

[Nismo 3.2ish]

4200-4300 for full boost

Similar to Jez

If this does not work properly with the 3.2 , what about a EFR 8374 with a 1.05 twin scroll rear

Edited July 8, 2015 by Nismo 3.2ish

[Mick_o]

^^^^YES!!!!!

[Ben C34]

Just take open wallet to next shop

[XGTRX]

Just get a bigger rear on your current one. You have heaps of choices. Just see what JEZ says.

But I recon you will be wrapped with what you have once it's tinkered with.

[Piggaz]

I had a bit of a sniff around, the 6262's largest (only) rear in split form is the 0.84. Its only the 6266/6466 that has the 0.84, 1.00, 1.15 and 1.32 AR

[Nismo 3.2ish]

Just take open wallet to next shop

tough house

[fatz]

Isn't there twin scroll lads making 500rwkw plus o. 6262

Can't wait to find out the reason as it will determine if I got 3 litre or 3.4 as my back up motor

[Piggaz]

not going to keep replacing stockers?

[sky30]

Agreed, if it was a 2.6 but its a 3.2. 0.6 litres per engine cycle increase is enough for it to outflow a small turbo rear which is OK on a responsive 2.6 setup. That's why he saw none of these issues on his 2.6.

Wouldnt a 2.6 and a 3.2 both making 400kw have same flow out the exhaust?

[fatz]

not going to keep replacing stockers?

Don't have any left

So rods and Pistons into a 30

[jangles]

Wouldnt a 2.6 and a 3.2 both making 400kw have same flow out the exhaust?

They'd have the same power at least.

[XGTRX]

Wouldnt a 2.6 and a 3.2 both making 400kw have same flow out the exhaust?

Probably similar gas velocity rather than volume.

[Stixbnr32]

Ok - I find it all interesting but it looks like he is close to having what he wants a responsive non GTR acting motor aka V8 type response.

let the poor girl free let her breathe and rev like god intended. It is a thing of beauty.

OR I HAVE AN IDEA - There is a Super Charged RB32 here in nz somewhere. Give that a go.

[sky30]

Probably similar gas velocity rather than volume.

Same size bang to make the power, thought would produce same amount of exhaust gas?

[iruvyouskyrine]

Ok - I find it all interesting but it looks like he is close to having what he wants a responsive non GTR acting motor aka V8 type response.

let the poor girl free let her breathe and rev like god intended. It is a thing of beauty.

OR I HAVE AN IDEA - There is a Super Charged RB32 here in nz somewhere. Give that a go.

RB32DERT. That should hopefully keep pete happy.