Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

apexi power fc

blitz frount mount cooler

nismo fuel pump

z32 AFM

AVC-R

dump pipe

NEW garrett highflow turbo (PM me if interested in this - avail. soon)

252 rwkw at 1 bar

Hits boost nice and early and does not drop off.

post-24130-1165276651.jpg

post-24130-1165276720.jpg

97' R33 GTST

-Turbo back exhaust

-Pod

-PFC

-Stage 3 Hi flow

-duel stage boot controller (turbosmart)

-Cooler (600x300x76)

-pump fuel

-14 psi

Made 211kw at the wheels.

Restricted by a 6,000rpm rev limit and injectors and fuel pump maxed out.

Edited by DNR33

R33 GTS-T S1

MICROTECH ECU LT12

850CC INJECTORS

PLAZMAMAN PLENUM

80MM THROTTLE BODY

ARIAS PISTONS

SHOTPENED RODS

FULLY BALANCED

HKS CAMS 256 264

HKS TO4Z

ON 25PSI MAKES 362RWKW TRIED TO PUT POST IN THE RB25 RESULTS PAGE

not sure why it didn't work for you, but i moved your topic in here for you. - Beer Baron

Edited by Beer Baron

R33 97 Series 2

Engine management - Stock ECU

Boost - 12psi

Turbo - STOCK

Coilpacks - STOCK (but taped up)

Custom Front Mount

Custom Intake Pipe

3" Exhuast from turbo back/Split dump pipe

Blitz Pod Filter

Greaddy BOV

220rwkws

:P

1997 R33 GTST series 2

HKS 2530 turbo

HKS boost controller

Apexi power FC

Greddy FMIC

turbo back 3" exhaust with metalcat

pod

95 octane pump fuel

1 bar boost

214 rwKw

Edited by mikel

post-10771-1165577843.jpgCar: R33 GTST

Mods:

Full exhaust, with very hi-flow cat

Bosch 040

Nismo fuel reg

Power FC

FMIC

Nismo 550 injectors

Exedy clutch

Z32 air flow meter

Turbotech boost controller running 17 psi

Slide hi-flow max oversize with VG30 rear housing

Edited by mickr33

RB25

260rwkw on 16psi on 95oct

The tuner tuned it really safe... but say's i could run another 10psi in it but the fuel is crap so i will have to wait.

Specs

Rebuilt motor (8.5:1 Comp ratio)

metal headgasket

Cams

Injector

z32

manifold

38mm wastegate

gt3076r

3inch exhaust

Edited by al_r33

hi, i drive an rb25 silvia.

mods

s2 rb25 det

garett gt3076 (ie.gt3037) .86

tial 38mm gate

delta fin cooler

turbo back exhaust

plenum

14psi on stock computer, afm, injectors and reg with 12.2 afr's

277.9 RW-KW....... my car is a freak.

Edited by drag-on silvia

S2 RB25DET

184RWKW (@5900ish RPM)

Stock Turbo/ECU

FMIC

Turbo Back Exhaust

HKS Pod Filter

9PSI showing on guage

Hit R&R pretty bad at about 5000rpm

19102006296.jpg

Edited by VLT025

got my 94 series 1 r33 gts-t back today after 9 months in the shop getting engine rebuilt e.t.c. gt3040r 600hp turbo with a/r.82 exhaust housing. results : 274 rwkws at 17psi on shell v power racing 100 ron fuel. 346 rwkws at 25psi on shell v power racing 100 ron at 7000rpm @

link to dyno sheet: http://i52.photobucket.com.au

Edited by bigcarl

97' r33 gtst S11

- turbo back exhaust

- pod

- front mount cooler

- pfc

- 550cc injectors

- stage 3 hiflow

- z32 air flow meter

- adjustable exhaust cam gear

- walbro fuel pump (500hp)

- dual stage boost controler

- 16 psi

- 98 octane pump fuel

- 36 degree day

made 245.8rwkw. boost spiked at 18 pounds around 4500rpm then droped off to around 14 by the time it hit 7000rpm. desperatly needs an ebc.

post-24882-1166670563.jpg

Edited by DNR33

My latest run: 288.9rwkw with about 18.5psi at peak power

post-2863-1166819414.jpg

related mods are;

Ms k&n pod with custom fiberglass partition and 100mm uPVC CAI

z32 afm

china hybrid copy cooler

s6 rx7 550 injectors

power fc

HKS 256/264 drop in cams

adjustable exhaust cam gear set to 0

split fire coils and bcpr7es plugs gapped to about .9mm

HKS low mount cast manifold

HKS 38mm ex wastegate with 2 inch pipe plumbed in before the cat

HKS t300s turbo, .7 ar comp cover, T04s comp wheel (unknown trim) T3 rear end in .63 housing

3 inch pipe off turbo

5 inch catco metal cat

3.5 inch custom mild steel cat back with custom 3.5 inch mid muffler and 3.5 inch x force cannon

previous best of 274rwkw at 18.5 psi peak, changed the old hot dog mid for a proper muffler, gained 14rwkw and made 274 on 1 bar this time :)

edit: woops, this is a stock bottom end rb25 in an r32 btw :)

Edited by BHDave

Nissan Skyline R33 GTS-t 96

Blitz kkr430 turbo

Trust 600 x 300

3inch turbo back exhause

Apexi S-afc II

Turbo smart dual boost controller

600hp fuel pump,

fuel regulator

spark plugs

Forged oversized pistons and rings

Block and crank machined

16 psi = 266rwkw

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...