Jump to content
SAU Community

Anyone with a coppermix competition twin plate holding 500kw?


Recommended Posts

Anyone with a coppermix competition twin plate holding 500kw?

As per title, got a new efr8374 on an rb26 and my current normal coppermix twin Is worn out and no longer doing its job. Will a competition version hold 500awkw?

 

That's really the most it's going to see with this turbo and its such a friendly twin plate I'm inclined to stay using one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intune and Nismo3.2ish both killed C spec coppermixes with the 8374. However, one is a 3.0 and the other is a 3.2. Pete's (the 3.2) nearly lasted a month.

It's more the torque that kills clutches. You may be right behind a 2.6L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I hope the Coppermix Twinplate Competition that I just installed in my 8374 equiped R34 will hold then! It's just a 86.5mm/standard stoke Neo though, and RWD, so here's hoping...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great You can be the guinea pig then! But being rwd you should be fine. They kind of act like a drive line fuse, you don't have that luxury with AWD.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

If 3.2ish managed to get one to hold on his car for a while before killing it, a 2.6 with 15-20% less torque should probably last.

Youre right. The question should  I have been who's making  900+ NM peak torque  a on a coppermix but most people only know their power figure. The plan is to keep the midrange torque In check to keep the gearbox and shafts alive anyway, and I have learnt the hard way that a super strong overkill clutch (RPS carbon) just breaks other stuff in a Evo.

Will have a look at the r3c, but the fact the centre isnt sprung is worrying drivability wise.

 

Cheers.

Edited by burn4005
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 2.6/2.8 guys should be ok. I ran a coppermix for 10 years (35,000 kms), power ranging from 370 rwkw to 470rwkw/800 nm of twist. 

I pulled it out only after munching an OS gear set. The plates were just over half worn. It never slipped, never misbehaved and never refreshed or rebuilt. This was with OVER 350 big RPM launches under its belt.

To replace it went an OS88 and an R3C. The driveability is on par to the coppermix. It's definitely NOT a lightswitch it's just the pickup point is lower compared to the high pickup of the coppermix. Apparently there was a design change with the OS R series of clutches at some point, not exactly sure when it was though. Some time before October 2014.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, GTR_JOEY ran 430 rwkw on a 2.6L using the NON C spec coppermix for years and never had an issue. Only 30 ish wkw difference between the above mentioned 3.0 and 3.2, torque difference is a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
×
×
  • Create New...