Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Piggaz said:

-5’s are too BIG for a 2.6. My god they’re a heap of shit to drive on a 2.6. Again, have you driven that setup? You’d be pumped to the moon and back by a euro hatchback.

I wouldn’t piss on those new journal bearing shitheaps from HKS. Waste of time.

You may be only looking at where they “fall off”... but how they drive and how the come on is chalk and cheese.

The GTR is a big, heavy heap of shit with tall gearing with the 5 speed and can’t be helped by any “smarts” in the engine bay (like VCT). It’s a small stroke, low comp donk with a dumb head. It needs all the help it can get to push around that pork!

It’s ok, I own one, have had for 15 years. But to own one with a 2.6 is a no go for the above reasons.

hahaha i really need to drive a single turbo 2.6 to see what its like.   I have a 400kw R32 with -5's and although i know they are laggy i dont find it a pig.  I suppose you dont know what you dont know right :P 

 

11 hours ago, Piggaz said:

-5’s are too BIG for a 2.6. My god they’re a heap of shit to drive on a 2.6. Again, have you driven that setup? You’d be pumped to the moon and back by a euro hatchback.

I wouldn’t piss on those new journal bearing shitheaps from HKS. Waste of time.

You may be only looking at where they “fall off”... but how they drive and how the come on is chalk and cheese.

The GTR is a big, heavy heap of shit with tall gearing with the 5 speed and can’t be helped by any “smarts” in the engine bay (like VCT). It’s a small stroke, low comp donk with a dumb head. It needs all the help it can get to push around that pork!

It’s ok, I own one, have had for 15 years. But to own one with a 2.6 is a no go for the above reasons.

I flipped it backwards, -5s are too big, correct. But GT3-SS turbos are tiny, 0.54 a/r exhaust turbine which is tighter than any other turbo out there. They nose over hard on 2.6, so the concern is that a 2.8 will just shift everything down a few hundred RPM and make the engine feel like a Mazda 2.5T where the power falls off a cliff well before redline.

The HKS turbos may be a waste of time/money but it's already too late, the turbos are bought for and installed so I'm just going to see how they go. The engine isn't at the point where the bottom end is going to be taken apart yet so it's going to just be a 2.6 for now. I have a VCAM step 1 sitting in the garage so that can be a first attempt to try and get the VE up earlier to spool the turbos. If that doesn't get the desired powerband then I'll think about a stroker or RB26/30.

I'll post dyno charts and data logs as I work through this, if it sucks you guys can have some fun pointing and laughing.

2 hours ago, Stixbnr32 said:

hahaha i really need to drive a single turbo 2.6 to see what its like.   I have a 400kw R32 with -5's and although i know they are laggy i dont find it a pig.  I suppose you dont know what you dont know right :P 

 

You going to gtr fest on the weekend?

I must say my car back when it ran was a laggy bucket of shit on the -5's but at the same time goddam it was fun once the boost kicks in!!

This is a weird statement to a degree but the better a turbo setup is, the worse it feels!!  What I mean by that is a smooth power curve from low down in the rev range doesn't have anywhere near the wow factor of a laggy turbo when it hits it's happy zone.  The better sorted car will be a waaaaaay better and quicker car (until high in the rev range anyway) to drive but it just doesn't have that raw "Holy f#$k hang on boys she's off" kind of feeling!  I drive a lot of the modern turbo cars that would be way faster than my car but they're boring AF compared to a laggy turbo coming on song!

54 minutes ago, Shoota_77 said:

This is a weird statement to a degree but the better a turbo setup is, the worse it feels!! 

Traction is the other thing though. When you have a knife edge boost response at higher rpm, the sudden transition to torque and power is more prone to make the tyres break. It is so much better to be applying torque to the road at lower rpm and gaining speed, Makes them tend to stay stuck to the road for longer. Not to mention it is more modulatable.

My thoughts are this, and I’m still torn here. But 

you wouldn’t get a Hakosuka GTR and pull the engine out (it has been described as the laggiest NA motor ever produced) and drop an SR20 into it, then say, it drives much better. 
this would probably be true, but you’d be missing the point. 
Now, I’m not saying our cars are at that same level, but I believe they are going in that direction. So I’d like to try to get my car when I want it, while it is still somewhat affordable (should have done it a couple of years ago) lol 

At this point, I’m even considering putting a getrag in it, over a sequential. 
but we’ll see where things go. 
As Piggaz said, they are a big heavy bucket of shit! 
but isn’t that why we love them, Clarkson said, it’s the flaws and imperfections in a car that we bond to. If it was perfect, it would be boring. 

Performance wise, bigger is always better. More torque, easier power.

But I was told by my engine builders that the 30 blocks are not as good for circuit work. Something to do with the harmonics I think? Anyone heard similar?

Therefore I built a 2.6 and didn't go stroker mostly due to cost, as I wanted to keep it simple and reliable as possible on the track. Probably should have gone a 2.8, but I wouldn't have been able to help myself, and I would have gone bigger turbo, sequential etc etc

13 minutes ago, Darmanin10 said:

30 blocks are not as good for circuit work. Something to do with the harmonics I think? Anyone heard similar?

It's not really the block, at least wrt the harmonic issue. The 30 block is certainly not as good as the 26 (typically, on average, there are always examples at each end of the bell curve) simply because it is taller. The squatter shape of the 26 block makes it stronger in a few places where it counts.

The harminic issue is in the crank. This can be minimised with a billet crank and upgraded balancer, as well as careful tolerancing etc etc. Every last detail helps kinda thing.

25 minutes ago, Piggaz said:

Isnt your car pushing water with a busted head gasket?

Just top it up and off you go again, has a VW or Audi feel to it. Every time you fill up your fuel, top up your oil & water 🤣

  • Haha 3
3 hours ago, Piggaz said:

Isnt your car pushing water with a busted head gasket?

Yep

 

3 hours ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Just top it up and off you go again, has a VW or Audi feel to it. Every time you fill up your fuel, top up your oil & water 🤣

Just been doing this, taking it to gtr fest on the weekend and then parts I’m replacing start coming off 

  • Like 3
6 hours ago, r32-25t said:

Yep

 

Just been doing this, taking it to gtr fest on the weekend and then parts I’m replacing start coming off 

See ya there mate 

 

also recently tossing up going 3L

we went 2.8 high comp shit load of head work and couldn’t be happier 

 

  • Like 3

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

    • 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.
    • A 180SX has a much better look than a FD. The roofline is far superior being a fastback. It's popups look better. In a world where we all subconsciously add a little bit of low, and wheels of our preference, it's just more handsome than the FD is. The FD just looks 'bubbly' in comparison. It can come down to preference, sure. But "The FD is the BEST looking (on appearances alone) 90's JDM car without question?" Nah. Plenty of questions lol. I could think of 8 cars I think look fundamentally better, and probably a handful of ones that look about on par with a FD. (like say a SW20 MR2) I feel people like/overrate the FD because of it's mythicality/rarity, its rotary and it's unpredictable nature. It probably drives great, you can stuff a ton of tyre under there, has a unique sound, light as hell. I feel that people reading this thinking "YOU CANT RATE A 180 ABOVE A FD BECAUSE A 180 IS A CHEAP DRIFT BUCKET" prove the point about bias as to what the car represents, moreso than how it actually looks.. I feel the 80's boxy/squared off look is becoming better looking due to time, and 90's melted soap bar aesthetics have not aged well. (yet?) And this thread is purely about looks :p
    • A red or yellow S15 wins my vote, Ack that it just scraps in with the 90's cars theme, but they are great looking little sports car Next would be a A80 Supra (pre face lift), whilst the A80 has its own issues, I feel is the best looking larger GT car As for the FD, "I" feel that the reason it triggers me in a non-positve way when looking at one, is like looking at a high maintenance pretty girl who you know is mentally unstable and likely to explode for no apparent reason
×
×
  • Create New...