Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

250rwkw is dangerous on the R33 320/370cc items.

I've known rb20 injectors to be pushed to 243rwkw on 17psi of boost.

The car went on to run 12.8, I can't remember the TS. :(

It was Clint32's old 'street' R32 before he attacked it. :D

I don't want to start a dyno argument here, but...............

12.8 for 1/4 = 311 horsepower using the heaviest weight I have ever seen an R32GST plus 120 kgs for the driver. That's around 180 rwkw, which is what I would expect out of a set of standard RB20DET injectors wiht a bit of extra fuel pressure.

Therein lies the problem, I see all sorts of miraculous horsepower claims from standard injectors. But when we run the car on another dyno or down the 1/4 they amazingly come back to what the calculator says they should make.

:D

I'm all too aware of different dyno figures.

Especially the difference between corrected (shootout) and non shootout mode read outs.

Next tune I will have this done on Boostworx dyno. Lets see if the shootout mode reads higher. :D

I suspect it will.

Exactly why I stated the power figures. :(

The car also wasn't kicking you in the arse until 5000rpm.

So you think my 176rwkw with basically 100% duty cycle is around the mark? :D

I can't see my bosch pump having issues supplying fuel at that power, especially considering its only using 9psi to make that power.

But.. you never know.

Sydneykid - fyi there is no way in hell an R32 with 180rwkw is going to do a 12.8. Not even close. Maybe a low 13, but not in the 12's. My S15 with 195rwkw ran 12.74 @110mph with a very good 1.94 60'.

"the obvios answer tho is if you want to make over 200rwkw its alot safer to upgrade your injectors etc"

If thats the obvious answer then the answer to your thread is obvious.

As I mentioned I made 187rwkw and I got a call from the tuner ( I said I would be happy with 200rwkw) telling me I could have my 200rwkw if I wanted an a/f ratio in the 13s but he wasnt going to take it there.

After a long drawn out slog which I wont get into in this thread I got my car back today with 235rwkw (rb20) using 510cc injectors,standard reg and a GTR pump.

I have seen up to 80 psi on the fuel gauge under full load/boost, and have not had any problems with fuel leaks in nearly 3 years and 50,000km while my car has ran high pressure.

I dont see the point in him upgrading his injectors if he can acheive the power he wants with the stock ones, he has said in post `1' he would rather not upgrade due to lack of $$$.

Sydneykid - fyi there is no way in hell an R32 with 180rwkw is going to do a 12.8. Not even close. Maybe a low 13, but not in the 12's. My S15 with 195rwkw ran 12.74 @110mph with a very good 1.94 60'.

It's not "my" 180 rwkw, I just used the trusty (well sort of) Moroso Horsepower calculator. It says 311 bhp, and based on my trusty (very) calcs that's 180 rwkw. Blaim Mr Morsoso not me. :P

BTW, our R34GTT ran an 11.9 (at 120 mph) with 265 rwkw, which is within 20 bhp of the horsepower Mr Moroso reckons it would need to do those numbers.

I think it comes back down to the old 'Average' power

Yes, I reckon it does :uh-huh: :uh-huh:

I run 114mph with 215rwkws, and there are cars at the drags running 11s with 108mph:(

If you need to get a major clean up of the tune id say grab the injectors (may mean saving up). If the bloke tuning it says std injectors are ok, and he will stand by his tune then i would begin to consider...the guy tuning should have the final say as you dont want to turn around and cook a motor and have him say "i said you needed injectors":(

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...