Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Car arrives at shop with stock RB26 on stock turbos. Has installed a PNP Haltech and a rough, rich tune. 14 psi on top end...laggy for sure. I knew we were swapping them so I didn't try hard here.

3 weeks later:
Billet oil pump gears
Tomei Cam Gears (rolled in pretty well)
My old EFR 8374 .92 and 6 boost divided IWGmanifold
3" exhaust
Still on 93 octane and still on Haltech basemap timing (still tuning just ran out of time last night)
15-16 psi boost (same as his car when arrived).
 

This is a FANTASTIC turbo for an RB26!

image.png.c7129c6116b3ce3425aa6f0ba6db4e5f.png

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
2 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

Torque line is not boost line.

looking at a few dyno sheets (from some manufacturers) it appears on some they correlate directly, and on others torque lags MAP by a little bit. I'm guessing that is more to do with torque calculation/smoothing and retarder control than reality?

I can't think of any reason why torque and MAP wouldn't correlate directly. why would torque lag it?

Edited by burn4005
7 hours ago, burn4005 said:

looking at a few dyno sheets (from some manufacturers) it appears on some they correlate directly, and on others torque lags MAP by a little bit. I'm guessing that is more to do with torque calculation/smoothing and retarder control than reality?

I can't think of any reason why torque and MAP wouldn't correlate directly. why would torque lag it?

Yuh, hence why I said what I said.  Without knowing whether it lines up on that car/dyno combo, you don't quite have enough info to assume.  FWIW, torque climbs from low to max in an NA....there is no boost to "set" the torque level.  That efficiency/breathing function is still present in a turbo engine too.  So if the boost comes up to max before the engine has reached its inherent torque plateau, then the torque should still lag the boost.

6 hours ago, fatz said:

If anyone needs a 9180 with external gate on housing 50mm progate

i have one for sale

how much woosh does that size make mate, I need something for the rb30 stagea

On 7/26/2018 at 5:36 PM, burn4005 said:

Full boost at 5k on stock turbos? That's a bit lethargic

I agree with you more for sure now. Below is the comparison on SAME dyno (only days apart) to my 1991 GTR.

Here is my stock RB26 GT2860-7 car. It has Greddy downpipe, HKS super Drager exhaust, Tomei cam gears rolled in about 6 deg, and now has hard inlet pipes that I built last week and a Haltech Platinum pnp (the rev2 is nice!!). I modified fuel rail for -6 inlet on rear and upgraded fuel pump with FIC 850cc drop-ins. 

On stock AFM's and just raising boost to 18psi it was 384 whp before cutting due to AFM overrun. It did ~ 300 whp at 9-10 psi boost.

New dyno on Haltech at 20.5 psi and 3 deg added to base haltech timing = 456 whp. I want you guys to note that while it "hangs" with the 8374 EFR IWG .92 on boost threshold on a non-load bearing dyno, when driving the two cars the single completely stomps the twins on response. You can spool sooner, run less boost, and make more power. The 8374 car on 14 psi makes the same power as the -7 car does on 19-20 psi...It is a no-brainer for anyone that thinks that -7 are acceptable boost threshold and lag turbos then the 8374 will beat the pants off of them everywhere.

image.thumb.png.22dddd5be5abe86d89d211d546afab97.png

 

 

Here is 9180 on 13B street port engine (the video I put up of it on idle a page or so back). Turbo is max response set up with adequate power range (~700bhp engine), makes for a fast car in a RX7 weight/size.

Power band is good, but it can only do so much, 120k turbo speed on this one, we have run higher on other cars though. Its got a nice spread of power and will do 100 to 200kph in one gear in under 5 seconds. I also include data on phase + anti phase control, we can run a bit more boost if required, and no drop off to 9000rpm (beauty of an advanced ECU).

lSzF6Zn.jpg

Edited by RICE RACING
right pic
  • Like 1
  • 5 weeks later...
3 minutes ago, Predator1 said:

Anyone have any experience with a 9180 1.01 on a 3.2? Hoping it will make 500.

The 9180 1.05 can easily supply 500rwkw worth of airflow.  the rest of the setup will need to support this, fuel is the biggest factor (knock)

4 hours ago, RB335 said:

Does anyone have a 9180 for sale?

Full-Race has a few in stock, there will be a sale for the big holiday in the states this weekend

Edited by Full-Race Geoff
30 minutes ago, Full-Race Geoff said:

The 9180 1.05 can easily supply 500rwkw worth of airflow.  the rest of the setup will need to support this, fuel is the biggest factor (knock)

Full-Race has a few in stock, there will be a sale for the big holiday in the states this weekend

Thanks Geoff. I am going to be using a built and ported head as well as flex fuel. The only thing that worries me is the turbo running out of puff on the top end.

Is there nothing in between a 1.01 and a 1.45? I really dont want to have to stick a 1.45 in there. I know a friend that runs one and is rather laggy, on a 3.2.

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

    • Yeah, the latter. No diff should have a centre replaced without checking clearances because its unlikely to be the same as whatever came out. Not that that stops most people just checking a new centre in
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...