Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What most people don't realise is the NASA spec fuel systems required to track these things.... 7670 & above.

In the custom surge tank I'll be running a 700lph brushless pressure pump (possibly with speed control) so we can run higher base pressures for better fuel atomisation....and to reduce the current compared to dual 460's & so that the fuel is heated less. We are currently working out an intank pump to feed this serious bit of gear..... ..and designing a top plate to suit.

What most people don't realise is the NASA spec fuel systems required to track these things.... 7670 & above.
In the custom surge tank I'll be running a 700lph brushless pressure pump (possibly with speed control) so we can run higher base pressures for better fuel atomisation....and to reduce the current compared to dual 460's & so that the fuel is heated less. We are currently working out an intank pump to feed this serious bit of gear..... ..and designing a top plate to suit.
Build thread please
1 hour ago, BakemonoRicer said:

What most people don't realise is the NASA spec fuel systems required to track these things.... 7670 & above

Get your car ready, I'll battle you at Wakefield or at a Roll Racing night.

NASA spec S15 vs Cabramatta spec R33.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
What most people don't realise is the NASA spec fuel systems required to track these things.... 7670 & above.
In the custom surge tank I'll be running a 700lph brushless pressure pump (possibly with speed control) so we can run higher base pressures for better fuel atomisation....and to reduce the current compared to dual 460's & so that the fuel is heated less. We are currently working out an intank pump to feed this serious bit of gear..... ..and designing a top plate to suit.
I love reading what you write, makes me wonder what planet you live on [emoji23]

A good quality adequately sized main and lift pumps are hardly 'NASA spec' smh
  • Haha 2
17 minutes ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Get your car ready, I'll battle you at Wakefield or at a Roll Racing night.

NASA spec S15 vs Cabramatta spec R33. 

You'll be blinded by my shift light when I shift into 3nd slingshotting out of a tailkick from the power of the EFR equipped SR20!

I hope you like ethanol fumes & S15 tail lights pal!!!!!! I'm gonna need a parachute to pull up this wild hog!!!

 

Edit. P.s. pls sell me your SMB rear muffler lol.

  • Haha 1

Got my new SR22VET running with the T4 .92 IWG 7670. 

Not noticing a whole lot of response loss compared to the old 2.2L setup with the T4 7163. Granted this new motor is built a lot nicer and has properly done +2mm exh valves which I guess helps.

Seeing it hit my 10psi boost cut at about 2.6k with no preload or wastegate duty and a 12psi spring, I'd expect it should do 20-25psi around 3.5k. it starts pulling hard at around 2.5k and is very linear. The 7163 did 23psi just before 3.5k. 

Tune booked in for the end of the month so will have some proper results EOM. 

  • Like 2

8374 with a 1.45 housing on a hamburger with the lot 2.8....is it epic? Hell f**king yes!!!!! The 1.05 is definitely hyperactive/frantic very early....but the 1.45 is like getting hit in the face by george foreman! In the lower mid to top end its just completely off its head, you're pinned to the seat holding on for dear life. Is it still responsive? Yes. Its just a little bit smoother early on.....you dont lose THAT much compared to the 1.05....and it still kills precisions, garretts and the like. The 8374 is definitely the perfect turbo, as it can do f ing everything VERY well....

But of course.....having a built motor with special head and portwork is 100% needed to bring out the goodness in these turbos....and when thats done...hold the f**k on!!! What would I choose? I honestly dont know if I could pick between the 1.05 and 1.45...they are both epic in their own rights...

13 hours ago, Kinkstaah said:

Except there's also that dude that made 466kw at the wheels on a 2.5 with one..

I think its more the fact its making nearly 200kw and peak torque at 4000rpm and seeing all the boost the match stick 4G rods can take by 4000rpm also. Big turbo behaves small even on a 2L 4 pot. 

Edited by Mick_o

This no replacement for displacement shit really annoys me

Build a f**king don mega head and enjoy the fruit of an EFR.

Whats funny is 4 cyls can in some cases make more grunt & torque than 6's. Deal with it.

 

That makes sense, so bit better match to this capacity engine, lower rotating inertia than 9180 0.92AR IWG combo, similar turbine power potential, sounds like the ideal combination for high boost combined with transient response.

that is correct, 9174 works best with the big 1.45 a/r housing when pushing the turbos limit.  The 74mm turbine is relatively small to swing the 91mm compressor so anything that can be done to reduce preturbine drive pressure at high rpm / high boost is a win for this one. 

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

    • Major thread necro but how bad of a job is it to DIY? Looking at it online it looks like if you reuse your ring and pinion as long as those are in good condition it should be fine to just pull the axles/front cover and replace the diff that way? Or should I be replacing everything and doing preload measurements/gear mesh testing like the factory service manual mentions for the rear diff?
    • in my list I had the R33 GTR as the best Skyline. Infact I had all GTR's (33>34=32), the NSX, the GTO, the 300ZX, the 180SX, the S15 better than the FD RX7. I had the MR2 and the A80 as 'just' better. I also think the DC5R Integra looks better but this is an 01 onwards car. I also think the FC>FD. It's almost like aesthetics are individual! The elements @GTSBoy likes about the FD and dislikes about the 180 are inverse in my eyes. I hate the rear end of the FD and it's weird tail lights that are bulbous and remind me of early hyundai excels. They are not striking, nor iconic, nor retro cool. The GTO has supercar proportions. I maintain these look much better in person (like the NSX) especially with nice wheels and suspension which is mandatory for all cars pretty much. Some (or all) of these you have to see in person to appreciate. You can't write a car off until you see one in the flesh IMO. Like most people we probably just like/dislike cars which represent certain eras of design or design styles in general. I also think the 60's Jag E type looks HORRIBLE, literally disgusting, and the 2000GT is nothing to write home about. FWIW I don't think the Dodge Viper Gen1's have aged very well either. You can probably see where I rate bubbly coupes like the FD. I know we're straying now but the C4 and C5 absolutely murder the Viper in the looks department as time goes on, for my eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if people who love the FD, also love the MX5, Dodge Viper, Jag E Type, etc etc.
    • I used to hate R31s, and any of the other Nissans that led up to it, and any of the Toyotas with similar styling, because of the boxiness. They were, and remain, childish, simplistic, and generally awful. I appreciate R31s a lot more now, but only the JDM 2 door. The ADM 4 door (and any other 4 door, even if they are unique compared to our local one) can eat a bowl of dicks. The Aussie R31 is also forever tarnished by their association with stereotypical bong clutching Aussie R31 owners of the 90s and early 2000s. I think the Nissans of the 70s (other than 120Y/180B/200B) are far superior looking to the 80s cars. The 240K era Skylines are boss. The same is broadly true of Toyotas. Hondas don't ever register in my thinking, from any era. Mitsus are all horrid shitboxen in any era, and so also don't register. Subarus are always awful, ditto. Daihatsus and Suzukis also don't generally register. They are all invisible. I think the SW20 MR2 looks fiddly. The 3000GT/GTO is like that but way worse. Too many silly plastic barnacles and fiddly gimmicks ruined what could have been a really nice base shape. Kinda-sorta looks like a big heavy ST165 Celica coupe (and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing). I think the 180SX is dreadfully bland. It's not bad looking. But it has no excitement to it at all. It's just a liftback coupe thing with no interest in its lines, and bad graphical elements (ie wide expanses of taillight plastic on the rear garnish). The S13 Silvia is a little better - getting closer to R32 shapes. But still....bland. S14? Nope. Don't love it. S15...a little better. Probably a lot better, actually. Benefits from not being like a shrunk in the wash R34 (where the S13 was a shrunk in the wash R32 and the S14 looked like a Pulsar or something else from the stable on Nissan mid 90s horrors). The Z32 was hot as f**k when it came out but hasn't aged as well as the A80. Keep in mind that I think the R33 is the most disgusting looking thing - and out of all the previous cars mentioned is objectively closest to my precious R32. It's just....real bad, almost everywhere you look. And that is down to the majority of what was designed in the 90s being shit. All Nissans from that era look like shit. Most other brands ditto. In that context, the FD absolutely stands out as being by far the best looking car, for reasons already discussed. Going behind the aesthetics, the suspension alone makes it better than almost any other car.  
    • If they just called it the "Mazda Tiffany", it would have been spot on.
    • Yup but for me its the HR ! Cut my teeth on the old holden 6s in the day ! And here's me thinking in the day it was also the 300ZX and the Mitsubishi GT3000 ! All, as well had good lines, but always seemed to need finishing off, style wise.
×
×
  • Create New...