Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, hardsteppa said:

thank you gentlemans's as always for your inputs. What do you think about overspeeding the turbo at 1.5 bar boost, 7500rpm? Assuming a VE of 95% which may drop off at upper rpms, shouldn't see more than max 55lbs per min?

G25-660-Comp-Map-kg-sec-scaled.thumb.jpg.19eced713ba3c18b30f6b9cdcdce5584.jpg

Really only safest way is to get an emap installed or turbine speed sensor or both and send it.

I feel you'll be very knock limited as you move away from efficiency island and your emap shoots up.

I recall it's on 98RON?

What's your ideal power goals and when you want to see peak torque? 

  • Like 1

was looking at turbo speed sensor but you know ;) i'm on a good old povspec Apexi PFC....so would would need to be an exxy standalone gauge unless i can successfully calibrate it thru Datalogit.

Yep p98, good memory there; knock levels on the PFC are actually consistently way lower than the ATR43 and GTX3076. I'm happy enough keeping the same 300~rwkw and having so much more midrange; dyno will tell but still seems to pull just as hard to 7000rpm. As soon as I'm firmly decided on keeping this or moving to a 770, will head back to PITS for a non-sexual touchup on the dyno.

  • Like 1
12 hours ago, hardsteppa said:

was looking at turbo speed sensor but you know ;) i'm on a good old povspec Apexi PFC....so would would need to be an exxy standalone gauge unless i can successfully calibrate it thru Datalogit.

Yep p98, good memory there; knock levels on the PFC are actually consistently way lower than the ATR43 and GTX3076. I'm happy enough keeping the same 300~rwkw and having so much more midrange; dyno will tell but still seems to pull just as hard to 7000rpm. As soon as I'm firmly decided on keeping this or moving to a 770, will head back to PITS for a non-sexual touchup on the dyno.

GENERALLY speaking, if you are just looking for more midrange with the same peak power then you're unlikely to actually end up pushing the turbo any harder.  

Mechanical efficiency (how much power you make vs air/fuel consumption) drops as rpm increases, so it's theoretically possible to make more power at earlier rpm with the same air flow.    Basically the turbo will be working *less* to make a bit more torque in the middle than it would be to make your peak power at the top end.

G30 660 keeps close to it's peak flow capacity to boost levels well beyond what you'll run on an RB25 on P98, so if you aren't aiming for a higher peak number then I feel fairly confident that your turbo won't be the limitation for filling out the torque curve past boost threshold - it will be how hard you are willing to lean on the engine with that fuel.   I don't see any benefit going to the G30 770, its the same hotside.   It sounds like you've fallen on a pretty good "goldilocks zone" of what works for you... I wouldn't change unless you had a strong reason to.

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 1
16 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

It shouldn't be too difficult to find an arduino based display for these speed sensors. 150krpm sounds like a lot to us, but it's nothing to a microprocessor these days.

or go ghetto and hook an a electronic boost gauge to a damper & coil on the turbo housing or exhaust manifold flange.

You'll understand what the turbo is doing pretty quickly with that data

image.thumb.png.110c306bab13f5822b597be74d4b2ca2.png

 

On the topic of EMAP, while it's kinda anecdotal evidence to a degree - the boost curve if you're purely gate controlled, or the wastegate duty curve to maintain a fixed boost level using electronic boost control can totally paint a bit of a picture of what EMAP is doing.   If your WGDC is pretty flat to achieve flat boost then it's typically fairly good sign EMAP is pretty kosher, if you start needing more WGDC (like 25% at 4500 then 30+ at 6500) then it's a safe bet that you're walking to the dark side of 1:1 EMAP/boost

  • Like 1
On 23/11/2022 at 8:26 PM, hardsteppa said:

Have been using a G30-660 with a .73 exhaust housing the last few weeks. On RB25det at 1.5 bar, it is quite possibly the best turbo I've had on the car, sooooo responsive and pulls HARD to 7000rpm. It also controls boost better as on my setup I would get boost creep on ATR43ss2 and GTX3076gen2 that wanted to keep going past 1.5bar in the higher rpms. No dyno result as yet for it though.

Flame suit on, I know there's likely to be alot of "that's too small!" and from the compressor map, it might be close to the turbo's limits but a while back I was driving a stock BMW turbo 118i that was killing my car for daily driving and zippiness. This turbo seems a great match for daily driving and tighter circuits, mountain roads etc. Still wondering if I should move up to the G30-770 though... Thoughts are welcome.

I've just ordered a G30-770 for mine, I'll let you know.

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/25/2022 at 1:56 PM, Lithium said:

If your WGDC is pretty flat to achieve flat boost then it's typically fairly good sign EMAP is pretty kosher, if you start needing more WGDC (like 25% at 4500 then 30+ at 6500) then it's a safe bet that you're walking to the dark side of 1:1 EMAP/boost

I did have to make my WGDC similar to your example, sorry for my lack of knowledge but what is 1:1 EMAP/boost?

Edited by elsk

EMAP is exhaust manifold pressure. Boost is inlet manifold pressure. For making really good power, you would prefer EMAP to be lower than the boost pressure. When EMAP exceeds boost pressure, it adds more flow restriction to the engine, driving more reversion of hot exhaust gases back into the cylinder, which just generally makes absolutely everything about trying to make power worse.

1:1 is an expression of the ratio of EMAP to boost pressure.

  • Like 2
35 minutes ago, elsk said:

I did have to make my WGDC similar to your example, sorry for my lack of knowledge but what is 1:1 EMAP/boost?

All good, I used to overexplain everything - now I'll just assume people know or will ask if they are interested :)

EMAP is the exhaust manifold pressure, basically.    When trying to make an engine efficient one of the best things to do is make a good pressure ratio across it, or in other words - make the exhaust pressure as low as possible compared to the intake (/ boost) pressure.   The reason for this is that fluids (in this context, gas...) want to even out pressure.   If you have higher exhaust manifold pressure than intake manifold pressure it actually starts becoming harder work for the engine to keep drawing air in and pushing exhaust out.   "1:1" is basically what naturally aspirated cars run at, and for all intents and purposes the engine is "not restricted" due the turbo and instead is operating more like it just has super dense air with minimal cost.

When you start going to the bad side of that 1:1 ratio the exhaust from the last combustion cycle starts getting significantly less reluctant to get pushed out of the engine and instead kind of hangs out and reduces the amount of left over space in the cylinder for the next bunch of new fresh air.   This directly affects volumetric efficiency, exacerbated by the fact that the left over exhaust gas is also hot and going to generally make things less nice and less efficient in the cylinder.

The reason that your wastegate duty cycle needs to start going up is that it's not JUST boost that affects the wastegate, exhaust manifold back pressure also works against the wastegate valve - so when it starts getting higher than the boost pressure you start seeing that you have to increase wastegate duty to offset the effect of that as well.   Basically, OVERLY simplified (it's not quite this simple) if exhaust back pressure never exceeds boost pressure then you'll typically see a fairly flat wgdc to get a flat boost curve.    So if you're needing 25% duty to hold 20psi of boost from 4000rpm to 8000rpm then the turbo is probably operating in a fairly happy place.

If you are running 25% duty from 4000-5500 to hold 20psi for boost, but then from 5500 to 8000rpm it creeps up to 35% while you aren't actually seeing any more boost then there is "something" making it need to do that, and often it will be the increasing exhaust back pressure trying to force the wastegate open from the exhaust side.  If it's pushing the gate open that effectively, it's ALSO going to be working against the engine during it's exhaust cycle - so effectively the mechanical efficiency of the engine starts taking a bit of a hit, as with volumetric efficiency due to more exhaust gas hanging around in the cylinders.

Hope that kinda makes sense.

 

Edited by Lithium
  • Like 2

Not a G series so dont know if its wanted in here?

If not can post in dyno results,  but thought it might be of interest to show the actual capacity to move air of the Gen ll GTX3582 when pushed a bit and right everything behind it

Not front loaded for mass response and specific for circuit car with sequential

Rb2.7 neo head vct high compression

845 rwhp at 33psi 8500rpm hub dyno

Dont get too technical on me I just drive and its fast it was more for interest sake of those whom might care 😄

G35 1050 1.01 to come soon

 

2094136513_Billet2.7Gtx3582.thumb.jpg.6677aea600c7fbc1b89d7592070a5c7a.jpg

Edited by bcozican
  • Like 6

gtx3582R gen2 is a great turbo from the previous generation.  i can understand why youd love it on that 2.7L 

but the g35-1050 is very different.  you might be happier with the g35-900 or the g40 if youre targetting bigger power

19 hours ago, bcozican said:

Not a G series so dont know if its wanted in here?

If not can post in dyno results,  but thought it might be of interest to show the actual capacity to move air of the Gen ll GTX3582 when pushed a bit and right everything behind it

Not front loaded for mass response and specific for circuit car with sequential

Rb2.7 neo head vct high compression

845 rwhp at 33psi 8500rpm hub dyno

Dont get too technical on me I just drive and its fast it was more for interest sake of those whom might care 😄

G35 1050 1.01 to come soon

 

2094136513_Billet2.7Gtx3582.thumb.jpg.6677aea600c7fbc1b89d7592070a5c7a.jpg

That's a fantastic result mate, nice work and cheers for sharing.   The Gen2 3582 has often been well underestimated in terms of it's ability (and effective size), but that's probably gonna be on kill haha.   

What are you hoping to see with the G35 vs this?

50 minutes ago, Lithium said:

That's a fantastic result mate, nice work and cheers for sharing.   The Gen2 3582 has often been well underestimated in terms of it's ability (and effective size), but that's probably gonna be on kill haha.   

What are you hoping to see with the G35 vs this?

From here I dont know to be honest I didnt expect to have the engine I have and that result from my old turbo

I bought the G35 1050 9 + months ago to go in a cast 9:1 rb28 with rb25 head converted to solid I was going to build to get a nice 800hp ish

due to many factors Ive just put in a Billet Nitto 2.7 with full racehead at 11:1 and got that results because I had to make an event and didnt have time to put the new turbo setup on (needed fab)

So spose id expect a little bit more, a newer turbo (time use wise)  and be able to live in a higher rpm range a bit better which is where this needs to be run ?

Here's another SR result from FB... seems pretty high for P11 cams and 25psi. 

link

S15 SR20 VVL Head
Using a Stock Head woth upgraded valve Springs  std p11 Cams
Garrett G25  660 Turbo .63 Housing
Plazmaman intake manifold &INTERCOOLER 
Haltech Elite ecu on Board 
Making 565Hp@Hubs on 25psi

No photo description available.

  • Like 2
On 25/11/2022 at 1:24 PM, discopotato03 said:

I agree , law of diminishing returns .

Thanks for your G30-660 results , it'd be the one I'd use from the G series range .

I might add..this is a Pulsar turbo, I can't keep buying top of the range turbos just to experiment. However since it's been soo awesome lol (the thing is just constant T51R spool sound too I might mention) and the turbo I'm going to settle on using, for the next few years at least, have bought a Garrett G30-660 supercore so will be interesting to see if there's any noticeable driveabilityness difference...ness between genyou-wine and knockoff.

Anyone want to buy an almost-new Garret GTX3076Rg2 or reasonably-used Hypergear Garret-core ball-bearing ATR43ss2 ? ;) ;)

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...