Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i'd be keen to see a dyno graph of your auto R32 making 160rwkw ;)

i made 132rwkw with the auto rb20 having 3"dump/front/cat-back (stock cat), FMIC, 12psi, chipped ecu (AFRs were 10-10.5 though), rb26 cams, and panel filter with CAI

i thought the auto robbed some power out of it personally but you seemed to do nicely!

EDIT: actually i just noticed in another thread that you have the MV automatics shift kit in your auto box as well... was this put in after the 140rwkw run?  

would this have contributed to the dyno figure or is it purely gear changes as the name would imply?

To be precise, it was 167.8 rwkw. I don't have the dyno sheet scanned yet, but I'll post it up as soon as I do.

The shift kit only affects the gear changes.

I had 137 rwkw, before the shift kit and intercooler, but it was running very lean. Once I changed the pump the A/F ratios went to 11.5 and 130 rwkw. 144rwkw was the figure after the intercooler. All the above figures are on stock boost.

Who chipped your Auto ECU? What was done on it? Fuel, ignition? That is my next mod but I'm unsure if it will affect gear changes!

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To be precise, it was 167.8 rwkw. I don't have the dyno sheet scanned yet, but I'll post it up as soon as I do.

The shift kit only affects the gear changes.

I had 137 rwkw, before the shift kit and intercooler, but it was running very lean. Once I changed the pump the A/F ratios went to 11.5 and 130 rwkw. 144rwkw was the figure after the intercooler. All the above figures are on stock boost.

Who chipped your Auto ECU? What was done on it? Fuel, ignition? That is my next mod but I'm unsure if it will affect gear changes!

i had it done in melb at a place called chipcontrol (www.chipcontrol.com.au)...

it was written by someone else for someone else's car (the guy who's car it was written for was shivam, called 'deorbit' on the forums). he told me about it and it only cost $150 to get it done, so meh. obviously it was written for a different setup that's why i run rich

shifts have not changed at all, and as far as i was aware the auto features are not affected by the chip, only fuel and ignition or whatever it is written for...

hmmmm so you're making good power with the auto box, what's up with my setup?

I wasn't happy with my setup until I got it tuned.

The mods are: pod filter, full 3 " exhaust, R33 turbo and intercooler. 144 rwkw on stock boost. The car has done 155K kms and it's Auto. I don't belive the auto box loses much power compared to manual.

Currently I'm running 14 psi and 167.8.

Don't forget, Dyno is only a tuning tool. In a week or 2 I will take my car to Croydon for a retune and to confirm the power it's making.

I think quite a number of cars have issues with ignition at revs higher than 4500rpm. Weak spark at more demanding rpm and load usually shows up as a flatening off of the power curve. There is not necessarily a 'miss' that gives this away, usually that occurs once the coil leakage has reached a point where you can see a little spark jumping about and there is a visable crack on the coil. Next time you change the spark plugs notice how heat effected the wiring is to the coils , it cops alot of abuse not just from the heat but also from the movement associated with plug changes. The heat makes the wiring brittle.

The other difference is the fact that a dyno does not create a rolling road environment. Where things like altitude and moving air can be faithfully replicated. More attention to how air flows into the airbox gets better results in real racing environments. Some times this is a disadvantage on the dyno when the fan doesn't get the airflow directed the same way as the cars areodynamics create at speed when air is say 'rammed' into the duct created. If your tune doesn't create this environment well enough then what might appear to be a good tune for power at the dyno with it's airflow characteristics may not suit the real world and you can easily end up with a little 'power hole' down at the track.

Fine tuning your car on the dyno is best done with the bonnet 'down'.

Mine is a Auto and only made 120rwkw but 478Nm @ 98Km/h :confused: that was done in second with the snow button on so it started in second and stayed in second. From 65Km/h to 80Km/h it sat on 110rwkw.

A manual SS crueman was on before me and I made more talk then him :confused:

For a power run in a Auto how should you do it leave it in second and use the snow button like I did? let it run through the gears like normal, use the power button?

Mine is a Auto and only made 120rwkw but 478Nm @ 98Km/h :confused: that was done in second with the snow button on so it started in second and stayed in second. From 65Km/h to 80Km/h it sat on 110rwkw.

A manual SS crueman was on before me and I made more talk then him :confused:

For a power run in a Auto how should you do it leave it in second and use the snow button like I did? let it run through the gears like normal, use the power button?

i don't know exactly...

the tuner/dyno operator should know what they are doing...

It's all bloody confusing the dyno graph I have starts at about 31km/h and reads about 65rwkw and about 840Nm of torque, if I had a scanner I would put it up. In stead of both the torque and kw starting from the bottom the torque starts up the top and the kw starts down the bottom and the finally meat @ 98km/h where it finishes.

I took a pic of it with my dig camera to give you an idea.

Mine is a Auto and only made 120rwkw but 478Nm @ 98Km/h :confused: that was done in second with the snow button on so it started in second and stayed in second. From 65Km/h to 80Km/h it sat on 110rwkw.

A manual SS crueman was on before me and I made more talk then him :confused:

For a power run in a Auto how should you do it leave it in second and use the snow button like I did? let it run through the gears like normal, use the power button?

Its sposed to be done in third, what they do is put power mode on and accelerate till it gets to 3rd then give it more throttle to hold in 3rd and rev out

but most places do it in 2nd, which i dont like all that much cos hitting redline in a selected gear gets autos very hot

Mine was done in third. O/D off and accelarate till it hits the 3rd and off we go. If it drops back, start again   :rofl:

BTW. I took my car to Eastern Creek last nite and ran 14.02 @ 102.26. 60' - 2.408.

R32 Auto sedan    :rofl:

nice work! :rofl:

should start another thread for R32 auto drag times... see what others have done

what's the weight of the sedan compared to coupe?

did you stall it up before takeoff?

did you run it throught the gears, or just left it in D?

stock suspension?

much wheelspin?

Warren.

BTW. I took my car to Eastern Creek last nite and ran 14.02 @ 102.26. 60' - 2.408.
Is your car grey? I was their last night, afew 32 and 33's.

You have potential for a mid 13sec pass, seeya at WSID next week :rofl:

Yeah, it's the dark grey 4 door without the front bar

It was my first time so I didn't know what to expect. First run was 14.3 and stalled up to 1000. Second and third I just wasn't ready when it turned green so ran simillar times. On the fourth run I stalled it around 2000 RPM and got 14.02. 60' is still something I need to work on and if I improve it I should be able to get into 13s with this setup.

I had it in D for all the runs with the Power mode on and O/D off. There was some wheelspin but not too much.

Unknown suspension. Possible stock (looks very high)

benm - I see you have about the same time as me but with a way better 60'. What car are you driving and how much power does it make?

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

    • Yep super expensive, awesome. It would be a cool passion project if I had the money.
    • Getting the setup right, is likely to cost multiples of the purchase price of the vehicle.
    • So it's a ginormous undertaking that will be a massive headache but will be sorta cool if pulled off right. And also expensive. I'm sure it'll be as expensive as buying the car itself. I don't think you could just do this build without upgrading other things to take the extra power. Probably lots of custom stuff as well. All this assuming the person has mechanical knowledge. I'm stupid enough to try it but smart enough to realize there's gonna be mistakes even with an experienced mechanic. I'm a young bloke on minimum wage that gets dopamine from air being moved around and got his knowledge from a Donut video on how engines work.]   Thanks for the response though super informative!
    • Yes, it is entirely possible to twincharge a Skyline. It is not....without problems though. There was a guy did it to an SOHC RB30 (and I think maybe it became or already was a 25/30) in a VL Commode. It was a monster. The idea is that you can run both compressors at relatively low pressure ratios, yet still end up with a quite large total pressure ratio because they multiply, not add, boost levels. So, if the blower is spun to give a 1.4:1 PR (ie, it would make ~40 kPa of boost on its own) and the turbo is set up to give a 1.4:1 PR also, then you don't get 40+40 = 80 kPa of boost, you get 1.4*1.4, which is pretty close to 100 kPa of boost. It's free real estate! This only gets better as the PRs increase. If both are set up to yield about 1.7 PR, which is only about 70 kPa or 10ish psi of boost each, you actually end up with about 1.9 bar of boost! So, inevitably it was a bit of a monster. The blower is set up as the 2nd compressor, closest to the motor, because it is a positive displacement unit, so to get the benefit of putting it in series with another compressor, it has to go second. If you put it first, it has to be bigger, because it will be breathing air at atmospheric pressure. The turbo's compressor ends up needing to be a lot larger than you'd expect, and optimised to be efficient at large mass flows and low PRs. The turbo's exhaust side needs to be quite relaxed, because it's not trying to provide the power to produce all the boost, and it has to handle ALL the exhaust flow. I think you need a much bigger wastegate than you might expect. Certainly bigger than for an engine just making the same power level turbo only. The blower effectively multiplies the base engine size. So if you put a 1.7 PR blower on a 2.5L Skyline, it's like turboing a 4.2L engine. Easy to make massive power. Plus, because the engine is blown, the blower makes boost before the turbo can even think about making boost, so it's like having that 4.2L engine all the way from idle. Fattens the torque delivery up massively. But, there are downsides. The first is trying to work out how to size the turbo according to the above. The second is that you pretty much have to give up on aircon. There's not enough space to mount everything you need. You might be able to go elec power steering pump, hidden away somewhere. but it would still be a struggle to get both the AC and the blower on the same side of the engine. Then, you have to ponder whether you want to truly intercool the thing. Ideally you would put a cooler between the turbo and the blower, so as to drop the heat out of it and gain even more benefit from the blower's positive displacement nature. But that would really need to be a water to air core, because you're never going to find enough room to run 2 sets of boost pipes out to air to air cores in the front of the car. But you still need to aftercool after the blower, because both these compressors will add a lot of heat, and you wil have the same temperature (more or less) as if you produced all that boost with a single stage, and no one in their right mind would try to run a petrol engine on high boost without a cooler (unless not using petrol, which we shall ignore for the moment). I'm of the opinnion that 2x water to air cores in the bay and 2x HXs out the front is probably the only sensible way to avoid wasting a lot of room trying to fit in long runs of boost pipe. But the struggle to locate everything in the limited space available would still be a pretty bad optimisation problem. If it was an OEM, they'd throw 20 engineers at it for a year and let them test out 30 ideas before deciding on the best layout. And they'd have the freedom to develop bespoke castings and the like, for manifolds, housings, connecting pipes to/from compressors and cores. A single person in a garage can either have one shot at it and live with the result, or spend 5 years trying to get it right.
    • Good to know, thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...