Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The stock one will outperform any aftermarket standard position exhaust manifold.

If you don't believe me, do a back to back test (same turbo, same boost, same timing) and you'll be super surprised.

That's good to hear I'll stick with the stock I hear they are good for 500hp and I'm only shooting for 350-400 once I can get this thing sorted and get to actually building it. 

44 minutes ago, Chris_Guthrie said:

I hear they are good for 500hp

You'd need to weld on an external gate to achieve that number though. I can't remember seeing anyone make 500hp at the wheels with the stock manifold / internally gated turbo.

On 4/24/2024 at 2:40 PM, Chris_Guthrie said:

Well considering I have the exact same problem with that as the original one I don't think that the ignitor is the problem. I would imagine that this being such an uncommon problem the possibility of getting a new ignitor that is bad in the same way as the old one has to be very slim. I'll definitely pull everything apart this weekend and check the turbo out. Got quite a bit of things to check out Saturday like fuel pressure and the pcv so I'll report back once I do that. 

Thanks everyone for all the replies this is all really helpful

 

Easiest way to know is to break out the multimeter and measure it when cold, then measure all the resistances again once it gets hot enough to misfire. Both the original ignitor and the J Replace version. Factory service manual will have the spec for the terminal measurements.

Edited by joshuaho96

Latest update, reinstalled the evap canister. No change. Disconnected the fpr vacuum hose, no change. 

Hooked up the fuel pressure tester. 42psi when primed, consistent with what I've been seeing online. When running, drops to 34psi. Ideas on this? 

Also, when I did my fuel pump rewire, I tested hot before tapping. I attempted at first to just unplug my relay to relieve fuel pressure and the pump still primed and ran. Thought that was strange. Unplugged the connector in the trunk by the fuel hat and was able to relieve fuel pressure that way. Starting to wonder if I jacked something up with my wiring because shouldn't be priming without the relay hooked up. 

Just got back from a quick test and I'm really thinking that maybe the fuel line is sucking air in. I noticed when I removed the fuel pressure tester the hose on the fuel filter was easily spin-able. When it was twisting I noticed a slight change in the engine rhythm. Took it out to see and did fine again without boost and for the most part did fine in boost until I got a big hiccup about half throttle going up a hill. Going to investigate that further when I get more time. Probably just replace the fuel filter and the hose and see if there is any changes. Was able to go about 10m away today with the car feeling fine, actually felt a little stronger im guessing thats the splitfire coils (still an intermittent  misfire at idle).

18 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Is correct. Manifold vacuum at idle is about the difference

That's good to know at least. Guess I can rule out the pump. Also thinking could be bad fuel though I filled up my bike (11' R1) at the same place  the other day with the same 93 octane and got a crazy misfire that I never had on that before too. 

On 5/1/2024 at 5:04 PM, Chris_Guthrie said:

Just got back from a quick test and I'm really thinking that maybe the fuel line is sucking air in. I noticed when I removed the fuel pressure tester the hose on the fuel filter was easily spin-able. When it was twisting I noticed a slight change in the engine rhythm. Took it out to see and did fine again without boost and for the most part did fine in boost until I got a big hiccup about half throttle going up a hill. Going to investigate that further when I get more time. Probably just replace the fuel filter and the hose and see if there is any changes. Was able to go about 10m away today with the car feeling fine, actually felt a little stronger im guessing thats the splitfire coils (still an intermittent  misfire at idle).

That's good to know at least. Guess I can rule out the pump. Also thinking could be bad fuel though I filled up my bike (11' R1) at the same place  the other day with the same 93 octane and got a crazy misfire that I never had on that before too. 

If your working theory is that air is getting into the fuel hose and those air bubbles are causing lean-outs it would run horribly at first or most likely no-start until the air is purged.

Also, if your fuel hose isn't sealing too well more likely it will manifest as a fuel leak, not air leaking into the system. I would be suspect of the gas station potentially having dirt intrusion in their underground tanks if you think it's the fuel filter causing a fuel pressure drop that causes lean-out. Fuel pressure has to be measured under load or you have to take a delta measurement at different points in the circuit if the idea of getting the car to a dyno or running a hose all the way from under the hood into the cabin and having one person check fuel pressure while the other drives is unpleasant.

On 5/3/2024 at 12:24 AM, joshuaho96 said:

I would be suspect of the gas station potentially having dirt intrusion in their underground tanks if you think it's the fuel filter causing a fuel pressure drop that causes lean-out

I'm thinking this but when I checked the fuel tank the fuel strainer under the pump was as clean as new. I do have a new fuel filter I'm going to replace that hose and filter just to be safe because maybe something did get through the strainer but I'm also going to attempt at some point next weekend to get the remaining fuel out and fill it up with some high quality fuel. 

You need the fuel pressure gauge reading when the car is running and on boost.

Revving it stationary doesn't tell you much.

Get a wideband O2 installed, or borrow a portable one.

Will show very valuable data.

  • Like 1
On 5/4/2024 at 9:04 PM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Will show very valuable data.

Both of those things are on my to do but not quite in a position to do that just yet until I can at least get it running back to stock. Going to work on getting the exhaust manifold gasket and studs replaced first, an obvious need it now. Then I'll try out the new maf and see hownthat does. After that I'm thinking cas if I'm still having the same issues. Still need to run the fuel out and refuel I'll change the fuel filter tomorrow along with cleaning the iacv with carb cleaner. If all else fails I'm going to get a serial port and see if I can get some sort of data on what the ecu is seeing when the issue is happening but really hoping one of the methods above work out first. After I get a good base I'm going link but have to save for that so it'll be a while for that based on my tuners suggestions. Definitely need the exhaust leak fixed first though car has always fallen flat after about 4-4500 rpm since I've had it and suspecting that's the issue. Then I can move forward with the rest. 

On 5/2/2024 at 12:04 PM, Chris_Guthrie said:

Also thinking could be bad fuel though I filled up my bike (11' R1) at the same place  the other day with the same 93 octane and got a crazy misfire that I never had on that before too. 

Have you explored this possibility further? I've been quietly watching this story unfold, early on I thought seems like bad fuel.

I got another MAF and installed it. Idle misfire was still present. Finally got the tank low enough to refuel and did so. Did a short drive to warm the car up and no issues, pretty short drive. Going to attempt soon to take a longer drive to see. I don't think the MAF fixed it if anything, definitely thinking it was fuel related. As soon as I put fresh fuel in the car felt so much better. But, still need a longer test drive to verify. I'll report back once done. 

I'm definitely going to be getting monitoring and tuning parts soon as my next upgrade (decided on the link after talking with my tuner), just been real tight with just purchasing the car and sudden onset of issues. I've also ordered a new exhaust stud kit and gasket to fix that obvious problem. Once it's back up to par I'll start with the goodies

  • 4 weeks later...

Issue resolved. 

So I was driving a couple weeks ago and noticed everytime I got on or off the highway (long right hand turns) the car would bog for a second and then pick back up. Decided then to just change the fuel pump. 

In doing so when I pulled out the fuel pump I noticed that the fuel strainer was very dirty on the bottom. Additionally, there was a little rust in the tank. The fuel strainer was only partially seated on the bottom of the pump which I was surprised to see was an AEM 340. I removed the fuel filter and it was clean coming out the out end and straight rust water coming out of the feed side. 

I changed the fuel filter and replaced the fuel pump. While I was there I went ahead and installed radium studs in the fuel hat and rewired the fuel pump with the relay mod, correctly this time. Used 12ga straight from the battery with a 20amp relay and inline fuse. 

Car feels much better. Only thing I have left to get it up to par is replacing the exhaust gasket and installing new exhaust mani studs to fix the missing one and the broken one. Once I do that I'll be investing in some data logging equipment. Looking forward to enjoying this 32 this summer. Wanted to thank all of you guys for all of your help and post the fix in case anyone is dealing with a similar issue. 

 

  • Like 2
On 4/28/2024 at 9:32 AM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

The stock one will outperform any aftermarket standard position exhaust manifold.

If you don't believe me, do a back to back test (same turbo, same boost, same timing) and you'll be super surprised.

Just on this, as there's a huge issue in your assumption Dose.

 

The logic you've given, is the same logic old school NA guys give for "needing back pressure" in an exhaust.

If you free up an exhaust system, and keep injecting the same fuel in etc, at the same timing, you'll typically drop power.

Freeing the exhaust will often make an engine want a little bit more timing, and even sometimes a little more fuel, but then it'll make even more power.

 

There's many mods people do and "get no extra power" when running a comparison on the same tune.

Imagine a car tuned for 91, but now we say put 98 in it, see no difference. But as we now have 98 fuel, you can run more timing, and make more power, as the 91 was knock limited.

 

So just be very wary in your claim of "don't retune it and do a back to back and you'll see". The correct approach would be tune the car with stock manifold, swap the manifold to aftermarket, and retune it again. But no one wants to do that, and all the results we get are "this was stock, and this is manifold changed and tuned" and people put it all down as just the tune doing it.

5 hours ago, MBS206 said:

Just on this, as there's a huge issue in your assumption Dose.

 

The logic you've given, is the same logic old school NA guys give for "needing back pressure" in an exhaust.

My point is more so focused on the division between cylinders 1 to 3 vs 4 to 6.

Any low mount "bolt on" aftermarket manifold utilises an open T3 collector which has crap all scavenging effects.

Sure it might allow you to slap in more timing up top to make a little more but you'll lose all the down low performance.

Even Tao from @hyper-gear has experienced the same when modifying the stock manifold. He has experienced added lag by cutting out the divider inside vs. leaving it alone.

Twin scroll works, even if the effort is focused primarily on the manifold and an open scroll turbine housing.

Please don't confuse me with a V8 NA or Americans that thinks you need back pressure in a 4 stroke motor.

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 think my main complaint with your idea is that there is a veneer of idealism spread across it. You want the simple numbers to make it easier, but all they will do is make it easier for someone to come to the wrong conclusion because the fine details will kick them in the nuts. As it is right now, the tiny bit of arithmetic is NOT the obstacle to understanding what will fit and what will not fit. The reality of trying it is what determines whether it will fit. If you had a "standard rule" that R34 GTT guards have that magic 100mm space from the hub face to whichever side you were worried about, and someone said "excellent, this wheel is only 98mm in that direction, I'll just go spend $4k on them and jam them on my sick ride".....they would just as likely find out that the "standard rule" is not true because the rear subframe is offset to one side by a fairly typical (but variable) 8mm on their car and they only have 92mm on one side and 108 on the other.
    • It still combines inches with mm, especially when you have .5 inches involved, and mm and inches that can go in either direction. This would give a clear idea on both sides of the rim, right away, with no arithmetic. Even better if somebody gives you the dimensions of the arch of multiple cars. i.e GTR may be 125mm, a A80 Supra may be 117mm, or something along those lines. Yes, you can 'know' that going from a 10in rim to a 10.5in rim with the same offset moves both sides about 6mm, but you still have to 'know' that and do the math. Often it's combined. People are going from 9.5 +27 to 10.5 +15. You may do the math to know it, but if it was going from (I had to go look it up to be sure) 241mm/2 - 27 - 93.5mm from the center line to (more math) 266/2 - 15 (118mm) from the center line. Versus 93mm vs 118mm. It's right there. If you know you have a GTT with 100mm guards you can see right away that one is close to flush and the other absolutely won't work. And when someone says "Oh the GTR is 120mm" suddenly you see that the 10.5 +15 is about perfect. (or you go and buy rims with approximately 118mm outward guard space) I think it's safe to say that given one of the most common questions in all modified cars is "How do offsets work" and "How do I know if wheels will fit on my car" that this would be much simpler... Of course, nothing will really change and nobody is going to remanufacture wheels and ditch inches and offset based on this conversation :p We'll all go "18x9+30 will line up pretty close to the guards for a R34 GTT (84mm)" but 'pretty close' is still not really defined (it is now!) and if you really care you still have go measure. Yes it depends on camber and height and dynamic movement, but so do all wheels no matter what you measure it for.
    • But offsets are simple numbers. 8" wheel? Call it 200mm, near enough. +35 offset? OK, so that means the hub face is that far out from the wheel centreline. Which is 2s of mental arithmetic to get to 65mm to outer edge and 135mm to inner. It's hardly any more effort for any other wheel width or offset. As I said, I just close my eyes and can see a picture of the wheel when given the width and offset. That wouldn't help me trust that a marginal fitment would actually go in and clear everything, any more than the supposedly simple numbers you're talking about. I dunno. Maybe I just automatically do numbers.
    • Sure! But you at least have simple numbers instead of 8.5 inches +/mm, relative to your current rims you do maths with as well, and/or compare with OEM diameter, which you also need to know/research/confirm..
×
×
  • Create New...