Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey all

got my car dynoed a few weeks back but haven't had time to post up the sheet yet.

thanks to paul from hunter thomas automotive in newcastle who did an awesome job, i was hoping for about 200ish but 218 is awesome :D:D:(:D;)

mods r as follows

FMIC

fuel pump & reg

PFC

AVCR

HD Clutch

still running stock injectors, air intake, AFM, and everything else which hasn't been changed

post-9174-1127739210.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/89010-2187-rwkw-on-stock-turbo/
Share on other sites

sard FPR, unsure which model. the lower of the 2

running a little over 1 bar, having been using it day in day out so far without problem.....touchwood

yes, good looking AFR curve

injectors hit about 92% duty cycle

using stock air intake

exhaust yeah sorry 3" turbo back

what reg you running? how much boost? is it a safe tune? what duty cycle are the injectors operating at? pod filter? exhaust (cat-back)?  thanks.

From those figures I believe

- 12PSI

- Stock rock ECU

- Turbo back exhaust (bashed out cat? :D )

yer? correct me if I'm wrong

Oh dear.........let's do some numbers.........

Standard injectors are 370 cc's

92% = 340 cc's

340 cc's in a 6 cylinder = 340 bhp

340 bhp = 254 kw

less 60 kw for losses in an R33GTST = 194 rwkw

218 rwkw would =12% increase in fuel flow

12% increase in fuel flow = ~40% increase in fuel pressure

standard fuel pressure is 36-38 psi, so +40% = 53 psi (above boost)

53 psi plus 1 bar boost = ~68 psi

I sure as hell hope you are not running 68 psi through the standard fuel lines and clamps, that is asking for trouble.

:D cheers :D

PS; 1 bar on the standard turbo, tick.....tick......

just curious how this figure was derived.

pretty run of the mill mate, search around. Lots of info.

Drivetrain loss is lies between 25-30% from the motor the the rear wheels.

SK have used approx 25% in his calc of 60kw

Cheers

Oh. and yeah, turbo wont last @ 14psi, not thats it'll be doing much above 10/12 anyhow.

also, above 1 bar equals a nice amount of hot air being rammed into your engine.

I'd be keeping an eye on that knock sensor..

and and for your info, I am running 11psi, and got 210rwkw. Why so much more boost just to get a measly 8 rwkw, and risk blowing your motor \ clutch \ turbo ?

dont mean to take over this thread, but just a quick question.. i got my car on the dyno today to see how much i got from the new apexi cat-back.. its a series 1 r33 GTS-T AUTO with just an apexi power intake kit and an apexi cat-back echaust.. it made 155 RWKW, does any one know if thats any good considering its an auto and pretty much stock?.. what would that be KW @ flywheel instead @ the wheels?... and does any one know how much KW a stock standard auto R33 has?.. thanks for the help.

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...